Sheriff v. State, 277 Ga. 182

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the statutory limitation allowing only one counsel to be heard "in conclusion" applies to the party presenting the final jury argument chronologically, not to the party presenting the middle argument. The trial court therefore erred by preventing both of the defendant's attorneys from participating in the middle closing argument. Because the error was not harmless, the court reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The statutory limitation that no more than one counsel may be heard "in conclusion" applies only to the party exercising the privilege of making the final jury argument chronologically; it does not limit the number of attorneys who may present the middle argument, so long as no more than two attorneys argue for a side without express leave of court.
2. The trial court erred by refusing to permit both of Sheriff's attorneys to participate in the middle argument, and the error was not harmless because the evidence was not so overwhelming that any contrary version of events was virtually unbelievable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase "in no case shall more than one counsel for each side be heard in conclusion" in OCGA § 17-8-70 limits the middle argument to one attorney as well as limiting the final argument to one attorney.
2. Whether the trial court's refusal to allow both of Sheriff's attorneys to participate in the middle closing argument was harmless error.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals properly overruled Limbrick v. State and related precedent construing the statute.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded