Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

206 Ga. App. 781

426 S.E.2d 573

Stokes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 23, 1992

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1992-09-23

Relies on 161 Ga. App. 141 - Morris v. State · Smith v. State · 204 Ga. App. 178 - Morgan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-09-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2015

4 state decisions

20199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pope, Judge.

¶1 Appellants/defendants William Stokes, Jr. and John Ellis Coleman were tried jointly and convicted of selling cocaine. They both appeal from their convictions and sentences and raise the same enumerations of error.

¶2 1. Defendants first argue the trial court erred in entering a judgment of conviction against them because the jury panel that heard their cases was not properly sworn. Defendants did not submit any evidence to the trial court that the jury panel was not sworn. They rely on the fact that the record does not reflect whether the jury panel was sworn. The courts of this State have consistently held that the failure of the record to reflect whether the jury is sworn does not constitute reversible error. Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 852 (3) (221 SE2d 601) (1976); Copeland v. State, 139 Ga. App. 55 (2) (227 SE2d 850) (1976).

¶3 2. Defendants also argue the trial court erred by admitting into evidence over their objections a bag containing the contraband in question to which tags were attached bearing their names. This enumeration of error is controlled adversely to defendants by our recent decisions in Morgan v. State, 204 Ga. App. 178 (1) (419 SE2d 313) (1992) and Brown v. State, 195 Ga. App. 389 (393 SE2d 514) (1990). Cf. Morris v. State, 161 Ga. App. 141 (288 SE2d 102) (1982) (in which this court held it was error to allow a tag on evidence stating that it came from defendant’s residence when the apartment in question was leased by someone else and whether the defendant resided in the apartment was an issue to be decided by the jury).

¶4 Judgments affirmed.

Carley, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.
/206/gaapp/781 · .json · Public domain