Court Opinion

ID: 9587551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:23:38.536301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:14.163695
License: Public Domain

Duckworth, Chief Justice,
concurring specially. It seems that we have abundant demonstration that for this court to say an action of the trial judge is not commended and point out what we think is a better policy, at the same time refusing to reverse, will not cause the trial courts to conform to our views. The following cases are regrettable repetitions of the same evils and our repeated admonitions: Comer & Co. v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1 (5); Hamilton v. State, 129 Ga. 747 (59 S. E. 803); Dotson v. State, 136 Ga. 243 (3) (71 S. E. 164); Yeates v. Yeates, 162 Ga. 153 *352(3) (132 S. E. 768); and Coleman v. State, 208 Ga. 511 (67 S. E. 2d 578). In the case last cited, I clearly indicated my concern about these cases. Today we are repeating the same futile policy of advising or recommending but failing to order. No reasonable doubt can be entertained but that for the judge to say he is giving a charge because counsel requested it is definitely to discredit it and to intimate to the jury that the judge does not approve it. I think that such action violates the rights of the party requesting the charge, and should be prohibited by this court. I have urged my associates to join me in overruling all of the foregoing cases so ruling and then reverse the instant case, but they will not all so agree; therefore, I am, solely because of those decisions, compelled to concur.