Court Opinion

ID: 9618229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:09:06.847705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:26.350973
License: Public Domain

HINES, Justice,
concurring specially.
As I do not believe that the majority draws any valid distinction between the trial court’s comments regarding venue in this case and that which transpired in State v. Gardner, 286 Ga. 633 (690 SE2d 164) (2010), I cannot join in Division 1 of the majority opinion.
In Gardner, the trial court said: “Prove venue. Did you prove venue?” And then: “Why don’t we go ahead and do that before we forget it.” I see no appreciable difference between the trial court’s question in Gardner and that in this case: “Did we establish venue on this one?” The addition of the comment “I just wanted to make sure,” upon which the majority relies for its declaration that these two cases differ, does not transform the remarks here into a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57; rather, both instances of trial court conduct violated the statute, and this Court should have upheld the statute in Gardner, as it does now.
I must also state that I cannot join in the sentiments expressed in footnote 2 of the majority opinion. (Maj. op., p. 160.) If the trial court engages in improper conduct, it should be reversed; if the court’s conduct does not violate the statute, why admonish the court?
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this special concurrence.
*162William J. Mason, for appellee.