Court Opinion

ID: 9849512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:41:23.882177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.454414
License: Public Domain

*499On Motion for Rehearing.
It is contended in the motion to rehear that we failed to address appellant’s contention that the trial court denied him the right to have his advisor-attorney participate in the defense of his case.
Prior to trial, appellant moved to be permitted to proceed as his own counsel, to dismiss his attorney as counsel, and to reappoint the attorney and allow him to act as advisory counsel. This motion was granted although the court denied the advisory counsel the right to cross examine witnesses, to make objections, and to make a closing argument. However, counsel was informed that he could fully advise his client on such matters as when to make objections. At trial, counsel was permitted to examine the defendant when he took the witness stand on his own behalf.
"The discretion of the trial judge in regulating conduct of counsel, parties, and the witnesses, and in prescribing the manner in which the business shall be conducted, including the manner in which the prisoner shall exercise his constitutional right of defense in person, is broad and is ample to enable him in any case to effect the purposes for which it is inherently his; but his discretion is not unlimited, for it must not be abused and it may not be exercised in such a way as to involve a deprivation of right.” Loomis v. State, 78 Ga. App. 153, 163 (51 SE2d 13) (1948). The facts in this case show no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Motion for rehearing denied.