Court Opinion

ID: 9846508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:42:40.571695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:35.764839
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of burglary; and sentenced to serve a term of ten years. Defendant’s motion for new trial was filed and denied, and he appeals, alleging reversible error in the denial of two motions for mistrial in that the court failed to give curative instructions with reference to certain alleged prejudicial remarks elicited by an assistant district attorney during voir dire questioning and in failing to rebuke counsel and in failing to give further curative instructions to the jurors resulting from other alleged prejudicial and unlawful comments made by counsel on another occasion.
The majority has considered only one issue found in two of the enumerations of error and has not considered the other enumeration of error contending that on a retrial that issue would not recur inasmuch as the co-defendant involved was found not guilty. The majority reverses with reference to the alleged statements made by the prospective juror during voir dire questioning simply because the voir dire was not transcribed by the court reporter inasmuch as Code Ann. § 27-2401 (Ga. L. 1973, pp. 159, 169; 1976, pp. 991, 992) mandates that in all felony cases the presiding judge must not only have the testimony taken down but also the proceedings in the case (including the voir dire as to prospective jurors) "except the argument of counsel.” Code Ann. § 27-2401, supra. Also, in the opinion by the majority, Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127 (1) (232 SE2d 590), and Hamilton v. State, 146 Ga. App. 884 (6) (247 SE2d 551), are overruled "insofar as they *662do not require the voir dire to be recorded.”
I do not agree with the majority here that it was reversible error to fail to record the voir dire in the case sub judice nor do I agree with the majority that the above cases should be overruled. There are many instances in which the voir dire hearing is not transcribed and no harmful error results. This also may be due to waiver on the part of a defendant or it may be that a defendant, who is not indigent, seeks to lower the cost of the transcript by not having the voir dire transcribed and reported. Certainly under the facts of such cases as Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131 (200 SE2d 271); McElwee v. State, 147 Ga. App. 84 (248 SE2d 162); and Parrott v. State, 134 Ga. App. 160, 161 (2) (214 SE2d 3), where the failure to prepare the transcript of the evidence and the proceedings results in harmful error to the defendant in which he is not at fault a new trial was necessary.
In Wade v. State, 231 Ga. 131 (1), supra, due to no fault of the defendant, the stenographic notes were lost and the same were not prepared by any other method such as a stipulation of the evidence and proceedings or narrative of the brief of evidence and proceedings, both authorized by Code Ann. § 6-805 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18,24). A new trial was necessary.
Again, in Parrott v. State, 134 Ga. App. 161, supra, the pre-sentencing stage of a trial was reversed because the absence of the transcript and proceedings "effectively denied the appellant his right to appeal.”
Again, in McElwee v. State, 147 Ga. App. 84, supra, a very vital part of the evidence was lost due to the failure of the transcription equipment which also effectively denied the defendant his right of appeal because a complete and correct transcript of the proceedings was not otherwise available to him.
However, in Lynch v. State, 143 Ga. App. 188 (2) (238 SE2d 122), this court refused to grant a new trial wherein a portion of the transcript with reference to tape recorded conversations was of such poor quality as to be inaudible in part inasmuch as this court determined "the unintelligible portions do not appear so substantial as to render the recording wholly untrustworthy as evidence or to foreclose appellate review.” This court held that the *663defendant therein did not aver there was anything favorable to him "in the inaudible portions of the tapes.” This court therein held, that no harmful error was shown, citing Harris v. State, 237 Ga. 718, 723-725 (5) (230 SE2d 1).
In Harris v. State, 237 Ga. 718, 726, supra, the Supreme Court of Georgia has said: "Our requirement for the transcript of the voir dire proceedings [in Ross v. State, 233 Ga. 361 (211 SE2d 356)] was based on a United States Supreme Court holding that appears to require that a transcript of the voir dire proceedings must be included in the record in cases where the death penalty is imposed.”
In the case sub judice there is no indication that any request or motion was made that the voir dire proceedings be taken down and recorded. In my view, since this is not a death penalty case, defendant would be on a more sound foundation for complaint had he made such a request or motion as this was a matter which likely could be corrected by timely action. If such a request or motion had been made and the trial court had declined to grant same then this court would now be confronted with the issue of whether the trial court’s declination constituted reversible error. However, such is not the issue here.
In my opinion the correct rule is and has always been that the defendant must show harmful error otherwise he is not entitled to a reversal. See in this connection Newell v. State, 237 Ga. 448, 490 (2) (228 SE2d 873); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 220 (2) (215 SE2d 223); Hall v. State, 202 Ga. 619, 620 (2) (44 SE2d 234); Davis v. State, 242 Ga. 901, 903 (1) (252 SE2d 443). Indeed, the burden is always on the defendant (as appellant) to show injury and harm from any alleged error. Otherwise, a new trial will not be in order. See Key v. State, 147 Ga. App. 800, 804 (14) (250 SE2d 527) and cits.
From my examination and observation of this case neither motion for mistrial is meritorious. I do not find the remarks made by the attorney for the co-defendant to in any way prejudice the case as to this defendant. In considering the statement of counsel for the defendant in his place as to what occurred during the voir dire questioning of the prospective juror, I do not consider that this defendant was in any way prejudiced. Hence, I do not find that any reprimand of anyone was required or that *664special instructions to the jury were necessary since I do not consider prejudicial matters to have been allowed before the already impaneled jurors in the case sub judice. Code § 81-1009, which calls for corrective action by the court in some situations following the denial of a motion for mistrial, was not applicable here.
But conceding, arguendo, that if the majority here were correct, and that prejudicial matter by reason of the statement by the prospective juror was heard by the members of the jury already impaneled so as to require a new trial, it is my opinion that the two cases cited above need not be overruled for allegedly espousing the view that the voir dire need not be transcribed.
The case of Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127, supra, written by Judge Marshall (now Associate Justice Marshall) (concurred in by Presiding Judge Quillian and Judge McMurray) merely noted that the court reporter had recorded and transcribed those portions of the argument of counsel and those portions of voir dire at which objection or controversy occurred and there was no contention that the transcript was inaccurate. Hence the appellant failed to show any "specific error or harm occurring within the portions of the voir dire and arguments omitted.” Nowhere in this opinion has this court espoused the view that the voir dire need not be transcribed. The court merely held that in the absence of a specific prejudice no reversible error was shown, citing such cases as Harris v. State, 237 Ga. 718, 725-727, supra; Welch v. State, 237 Ga. 665 (3) (229 SE2d 390); Newell v. State, 237 Ga. 488, 490, supra; Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, supra; Hall v. State, 202 Ga. 619, supra.
The case of Hamilton v. State, 146 Ga. App. 884, supra (written by Judge Webb, concurred in by Presiding Judge Quillian and Judge McMurray), merely held that it was not error for failure of the trial court to have the voir dire and opening statements of counsel reported, citing Code Ann. § 27-2401, supra, and Newell v. State, supra, without commenting on the reason.
Absent any prejudicial error in the case sub judice, the judgment should be affirmed and the above cases not be overruled.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.