Injury resulting from change in order must be shown.

- Before a party can be heard to object to the order in which the court proceeds, the party must show injury to oneself resulting from the act of the court. Rosenbrook v. State, 78 Ga. 111 (1886); Lister v. State, 143 Ga. App. 483, 238 S.E.2d 591 (1977).

Trial court did not err by calling a case out of the order listed on the trial calendar when both the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel announced that they were ready for trial and the defendant was not prejudiced by the case being called out of order. Wilkins v. State, 246 Ga. App. 667, 541 S.E.2d 458 (2000).

Grant or denial of continuance in court's discretion.

- Grant or denial of a continuance to a criminal defendant is in the sound discretion of the court, especially when the defendant is in jail. Gann v. State, 166 Ga. App. 172, 303 S.E.2d 510 (1983).

Allowing the district attorney to call cases out of the order listed on the criminal trial calendar was an abuse of discretion. Cuzzort v. State, 271 Ga. 464, 519 S.E.2d 687 (1999).

Defendant was not entitled to reversal of the defendant's conviction on the basis of an illegal case assignment system pursuant to which the district attorney called the case for trial, and assigned the case to a judge since the case assignment system was not unconstitutional and it was highly improbable that the assignment contributed to the jury's verdict. State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 543 S.E.2d 721 (2001).

Defendant's case called before others with lower docket numbers.

- When neither injury nor abuse of sound discretion are shown, the trial judge does not err in ruling against a defendant's motion for continuance on the ground that the defendant's case was called for trial prior to another case having a lower number on the docket. Merrill v. State, 130 Ga. App. 745, 204 S.E.2d 632 (1974).

"Speedy trial demand" cases.

- Rule does not prohibit a local policy moving a "speedy trial demand" case to the top of a calendar; in fact, such a policy is only common sense and designed to accommodate the demand of the accused. Culliver v. State, 247 Ga. App. 877, 545 S.E.2d 392 (2001).

Prejudice from sounding several indictments against same defendant all at once.

- Frequently, when several indictments are pending against the same defendant, the indictments are all sounded on the call of the docket in the hearing of the jurors who are assembled in the courtroom to try those and other cases on the calendar. This may be somewhat prejudicial to such defendants, but it is, nevertheless, the only proper and expedient method of sounding out the docket. It is no more prejudicial when another indictment is publicized to the jurors through error, than in the manner pointed out first, and to hold such conduct to be prejudicial would reflect on the authority of the trial court to call the docket as required by this section. Dye v. State, 77 Ga. App. 517, 48 S.E.2d 742 (1948).

There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion for a mistrial or disqualifying the jurors after the prosecutor apparently read the criminal calendar in the presence of the panel of potential jurors prior to commencement of trial, which calendar allegedly contained three felony charges against the defendant, who moved for a mistrial on the ground that it placed the defendant's character in issue and made it impossible to obtain jurors who had not heard the prejudicial information about the defendant and, in the alternative, asked that all jurors present when the calendar was read be disqualified. Anderson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 885, 303 S.E.2d 57 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 252 Ga. 103, 312 S.E.2d 113 (1984).

Arraigning for different offenses at same time.

- This section did not vest in the solicitor general (now district attorney) the right to arraign a defendant, read to the defendant the indictment against the defendant, require the defendant to plead thereto, and upon receiving the defendant's plea of not guilty, proceed further to read two more indictments against the defendant involving different offenses, and receive pleas of guilty or not guilty thereto. Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 99 S.E.2d 884 (1957).

Dismissal of continued case when state unprepared.

- When a criminal case was called for trial, the court granted the state's motion for continuance and the state was placed on terms, the case was then reset for trial, and the state was not ready to try the case on that date, the court properly dismissed the charges against the defendant. State v. Grimes, 194 Ga. App. 736, 392 S.E.2d 727 (1990).

Sufficiency of harm.

- Failure to try the defendant's case in the order in which the case appeared on the trial calendar resulting in the loss of contact with a witness who possessed exculpatory testimony provided an insufficient showing of harm since the content of the witness' expected testimony was never revealed. State v. Jessup, 187 Ga. App. 429, 370 S.E.2d 489 (1988).

Forfeiture of bail bond.

- Bail bond was properly forfeited for nonappearance even though the defendant's case was called out of order on the trial calendar. Taylor v. State, 194 Ga. App. 245, 390 S.E.2d 601 (1990).

Cited in Barrentine v. State, 136 Ga. App. 802, 222 S.E.2d 103 (1975); Arnsdorff v. State, 152 Ga. App. 515, 263 S.E.2d 176 (1979); Garner v. State, 159 Ga. App. 244, 282 S.E.2d 909 (1981); Ramsey v. State, 169 Ga. App. 920, 315 S.E.2d 472 (1984); State v. Finkelstein, 170 Ga. App. 608, 317 S.E.2d 648 (1984).