Jackson v. State, 244 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Jackson v. State, 244 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Jonathan Quentin Irving v. State (gactapp, 2019-09-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Quentin Irving v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. State, 244 Ga. 295, 298 (7) ( 260 SE2d 23 ) (1979); Jackson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 526, 527 (1) ( 244 SE2d 49 ) (1978). (b) Brady rule.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Price v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Nor did defendant request any curative measures. “ ‘[A]bsent some objection invoking a ruling by the trial court there is nothing for review in this court. [Cit.]’ Jackson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 526, 527 (3) ( 244 SE2d 49 ) (1978).” Davis v. State, 170 Ga. App. 126 (2) ( 316 SE2d 573 ) (1984); see also Johnson v. State, 170 Ga. App. 433, 437 (7) ( 317 SE2d 213 ) (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
With regard to two of the alleged “improper remarks,” no objection was raised. “[Ajbsent some objection invoking a ruling by the trial court there is nothing for review in this court. [Cit.]” Jackson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 526, 527 (3) ( 244 SE2d 49 ) (1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dasher v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
“Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, this court will not reverse a trial court’s refusal to grant... a continuance [cit.]...” Jackson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 526, 527 ( 244 SE2d 49 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cantwell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Cochran, supra; Jackson v. State, 145 Ga. App. 526, 527 (3) ( 244 SE2d 49 ), and see Favors v. State, 145 Ga. App. 864, 865-866 ( 244 SE2d 902 ).
JACKSON Et Al.
v.
THE STATE
55113.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 16, 1978.
244 S.E.2d 49
Ronald K. Owen, Charles M. Richards, for appellants., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Donald J. Stein, Jack E. Mallard, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Smith, Deen, Banke.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Smith, Judge.

The appellants, Jackson and West, were convicted and sentenced for committing armed robbery and aggravated assault. The appeal contends there was error in the state’s refusal to grant a continuance and a severance, and in the admission of allegedly prejudicial evidence and comment. We affirm the convictions.

1. The defense moved for production of exculpatory avidence in the state’s files, including "FBI rap sheets,” obtainable by the state, which allegedly would show that[*527] two of the state’s witnesses had been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The state produced such a document for one of the witnesses, but replied that it did not have a "rap sheet” for the other witness. The appeal contends that the state’s failure to secure and produce this document was a Brady violation (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963)) denying the appellants due process. It is clear, however, that the constitutional requirement of Brady is that the state produce exculpatory evidence in its files, not that the state affirmatively seek out exculpatory evidence, even though that evidence may be more accessible to the state than the defense. Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393 (207 SE2d 30) (1974). There is no evidence that this "rap sheet” existed in the state’s file and was actually withheld, so there is no basis for us to find a Brady violation. Rini v. State, 236 Ga. 715 (4) (225 SE2d 234) (1976).

Submitted January 4, 1978 Decided February 16, 1978 Rehearing denied March 31, 1978 — Cert, applied for. Ronald K. Owen, Charles M. Richards, for appellants.

2. Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, this court will not reverse a trial court’s refusal to grant either a continuance (Watts v. State, 142 Ga. App. 857 (1) (237 SE2d 231) (1977)) or a severance, Lenear v. State, 239 Ga. 617 (6) (238 SE2d 407) (1977). We find no such showing of abuse under the facts of this case.

3. Objection is made to several instances of testimony by state witnesses and comment by state’s counsel, all of which allegedly prejudiced the jury and operated to deny the appellants a fair trial. However, no objection was interposed at trial in response to any of the testimony or comment, and absent some objection invoking a ruling by the trial court there is nothing for review in this court. Brown v. State, 110 Ga. App. 401, 407 (138 SE2d 741) (1964). At any rate, we do not agree that the testimony and comment unfairly biased the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur. [*528] Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Donald J. Stein, Jack E. Mallard, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.