Court Opinion

ID: 9586523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:23.223671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:41.925122
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
concurring specially. During interrogation of the defendant, State’s counsel asked him how many times he had taken the Georgia bar examination; and before objection could be made, asked him whether or not it was true that defendant was suing the Georgia bar examiners. Motion for mistrial was promptly made at the time, and the trial court required an apology and instructed the jury not to consider these questions. The Supreme Court of Georgia has held time and again that this action is sufficient, and that the question of whether a mistrial should be granted is a matter for determination in the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion. See Andrews v. State, 222 Ga. 689 (3.) (152 SE2d 388); Salmon v. Salmon, 223 Ga. 129 (1) (153 SE2d 719); Wooten v. State, 224 Ga. 106 (3) (160 SE2d 403), among many others.
I am bound by these decisions of the Supreme Court, but I do not agree with them. Something more drastic than a remonstrance and the requirement of an apology would seem to be required when a prosecuting officer, who is an agent of the State of Georgia, injects extraneous matter into a trial which has no purpose other than to prejudice the case of the defendant and to deprive him of a fair trial. See my dissenting opinions in Merneigh v. State, 123 Ga. App. 485 (181 SE2d 498) and in Johnson v. State, 123 Ga. App. 857 (182 SE2d 701).
Whether or not defendant was suing the Georgia bar examiners was irrelevant to the question at issue; and its introduction into the case was completely inexcusable. Of course, the trial judge instructed the jury not to be influenced by the question, and required an apology from counsel, but who is to say whether the *401jury did let this matter influence them? Which one of us knows how much our likes and dislikes, favoritisms and prejudices influence us on any given subject? The human mind is a mysterious agent, and a simple suggestion by the trial judge to pay no attention to this matter may have fallen far short of accomplishing that result.
I agree with the judgment affirming the trial court only because I am bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia above enumerated.