From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reece v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 8, 1981
286 S.E.2d 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

62257.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1981. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 15, 1981.

Drug violation. Paulding Superior Court. Before Judge Fudger.

William G. Posey, for appellants.

William A. Foster III, District Attorney, Frank C. Winn, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


The defendants appeal their conviction for the sale of methaqualone, a Schedule II drug. See Georgia Controlled Substances Act, Code Ann. § 79A-807 (e) (1) (Ga. L. 1974, pp. 221, 235; as amended through 1980, pp. 1746, 1752). Two errors are enumerated: 1) "the trial court erred in refusing to allow the counsel for Appellants to examine the document used by the police officer to refresh his memory"; 2) "the trial court erred in the Poll of the jury, and refused to ask if the verdict was still the verdict of the jury." Held:

1. During cross-examination, counsel for the defendants was not entitled to examine the document utilized by the state's witness to refresh his memory. McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606 (5) ( 266 S.E.2d 210). Accord, Smith v. Smith, 222 Ga. 313, 315 ( 149 S.E.2d 683); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718 ( 203 S.E.2d 537); Jackson v. State, 242 Ga. 692 ( 251 S.E.2d 282).

2. The trial judge's poll of the jury was in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in such cases as Wilson v. State, 93 Ga. App. 375 (2) ( 91 S.E.2d 854), and Burnett v. State, 240 Ga. 681, 688 (11) ( 242 S.E.2d 79).

Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1981 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 15, 1981 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Reece v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 8, 1981
286 S.E.2d 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Reece v. State

Case Details

Full title:REECE et al. v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 8, 1981

Citations

286 S.E.2d 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
286 S.E.2d 41

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

4. The fourth enumeration has no merit. The defense has no right to examine a statement used by a prosecution…

Williams v. State

The defendant had no right to examine the witness' report which was used to refresh his memory and which was…