Bills of Exceptions, Exceptions Pendente Lite, Assignments of Error Abolished; Contents of Motions for New Trial and for j.n.o.v

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Appeal and Error
  4. Certiorari and Appeals to Appellate Courts Generally
  5. Appellate Practice
  6. Bills of Exceptions, Exceptions Pendente Lite, Assignments of Error Abolished; Contents of Motions for New Trial and for j.n.o.v

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. Bills of exceptions, exceptions pendente lite, assignments of error, and all rules relating thereto are abolished.
  2. Motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict need not set out portions of the record or transcript of evidence and it shall not be necessary that the grounds thereof be complete in themselves or be approved by the court; provided, however, that the motions must be sufficiently definite to inform the opposite party of the contention of the movant.

(Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, § 3.)

Cross references.

- Rulings on motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motions for new trial, § 9-11-50.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Time limitation for grant of new trial on unspecified grounds on court's own motion.

- Court may not grant new trial on unspecified ground on own motion after more than 30 days from entry of judgment and after expiration of term. Darby v. Commercial Bank, 135 Ga. App. 462, 218 S.E.2d 252 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 140 Ga. App. 755, 232 S.E.2d 100 (1976).

Issue preserved for review.

- Claim on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to consider a request for a nonjury bench trial in a criminal matter was preserved for review despite the fact that the counsel did not state an exception or file an objection to the trial court's ruling, as the "bill of exceptions" requirement was abolished a long time ago pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-6-49(a); the trial court did not err, as there was no requirement that a defendant be given a nonjury trial upon a request and nothing prevented the trial courts from ensuring that the defendants were given the defendants' constitutional jury trial right pursuant to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI. Lindo v. State, 278 Ga. App. 228, 628 S.E.2d 665 (2006).

Given that once the trial court addressed the defendant's motion regarding sequestration of the lead investigating officer and the trial court issued a ruling, the defendant did not need to further object to the ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Stafford v. State, 288 Ga. App. 733, 655 S.E.2d 221 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0654, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 489 (Ga. 2008).

Cited in Murcherson v. State, 112 Ga. App. 299, 145 S.E.2d 58 (1965); Bishop v. Lamkin, 221 Ga. 691, 146 S.E.2d 769 (1966); Wright v. Wright, 222 Ga. 777, 152 S.E.2d 363 (1966); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 124 Ga. App. 42, 183 S.E.2d 73 (1971); Brown v. Rooks, 139 Ga. App. 770, 229 S.E.2d 548 (1976); State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 238 S.E.2d 38 (1977); Hienrichsen v. Harris, 155 Ga. App. 810, 273 S.E.2d 213 (1980); Turner v. National Bank, 160 Ga. App. 165, 286 S.E.2d 500 (1981); Hiers-Wright Assocs. v. Manufacturers Hanover Mtg. Corp., 182 Ga. App. 732, 356 S.E.2d 903 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

2 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal and Error, § 399.

C.J.S.

- 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 591.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.