Court Opinion

ID: 9595842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:43:38.134224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:06.344251
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring.
I fully join the majority’s opinion in this case and the affirmance of the judgment of conviction entered on the verdict. I write separately to emphasize that, in Division 2 of the opinion, this Court has decided an issue of first impression in determining that counsel in an appropriate criminal case may argue “the different ramifications and dispositions associated with verdicts of guilty but mentally ill, and not guilty by reason of insanity.” (Majority opinion, page 74.) This holding is mandated because OCGA § 17-7-131 now requires that the trial court instruct the jury with regard to the disposition which will result from each of those verdicts. Although under the facts and circumstances of this case we found the error of the trial court in prohibiting such argument to be harmless, it nevertheless was error. Our holding in this regard is consistent with the sanctity the courts of Georgia have always accorded to the right of argument of counsel. As he usually did, Justice Logan E. Bleckley said it most eloquently:
Argument is not only a right, but a material one. It is not a mere ornamental fringe, hung upon the border of a trial. Trial, under our system, is a co-operation of minds — a grave and serious consultation over what should be done and how the end should be accomplished. The attorneys in the cause are not mere carriers to bring in materials for constructing the edifice; they have a right, as representing the parties, to suggest where every important stone should be *77laid, and to assign reasons, drawn from legitimate sources, in support of their suggestions. Their reasons may be good or bad, but such as they are, they should be heard and considered.
Decided November 6, 1995 —
Reconsideration denied December 15, 1995.
Corinne M. Mull, for appellant.
J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Sheila A. Connors, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
VanDyke v. Martin, 55 Ga. 466, 469-470 (1875). Thus trial courts in this state are encouraged to carefully safeguard the right of counsel for both sides to argue within the limits of the law. An error of a trial court may be harmless, as we have found it to be in this case, but the error becomes harmless only when an appellate court determines that it is. As Justice Bleckley also said,
[a]mple opportunity for full argument is certainly an important right to the parties, and if denied on the main trial of a case, civil or criminal, the denial would furnish sufficient reason, generally, for a new trial. [Cits.]
(Emphasis supplied.) Early & Lane v. Oliver & Norton, 63 Ga. 11, 18 (2) (1879).