Court Opinion

ID: 9586751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:30.134325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:49.292618
License: Public Domain

On Motion Eor Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing it is contended that this court overlooked “speeiál ground four” of the motion for a new trial, and the contention of the defendant therein that the admission in evidence of the statement of the codefendant therein referred to “was in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, in that she was not confronted with the witness.” No such question was mentioned in “special ground four.” That ground assigned error on the refusal of the court to give in charge a written request, and is disposed of in the fourth division of the opinion. The defendant attempted to raise in special ground three the question now presented, and it was not overlooked. The 3rd division of the opinion deals with all questions properly made therein. By reference to the record it will be seen that this ground fails to disclose that the objection now urged was made at the proper time before the trial judge, and therefore it cannot be considered by this court. Lankford v. Holton, 187 Ga. 94, 100 (8) (200 S. E. 243), and cases there cited.

Motion for rehearing denied.