 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. State7/1/2004
trial, that he wilfully and knowingly swore falsely, or the testimony must be such as to render the purpose to falsify manifest." However, none of the statements or signatures were made under oath, and no such admissions were made. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to charge on false swearing.
6. Brown next contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss because the Attorney General's office did not have lawful authority to investigate and prosecute her. Brown argues that OCGA § 45-15-18, which empowers the Governor to direct the Attorney General to investigate the affairs of anyone dealing with the state and to prosecute criminal and civil actions against those who cause damage or injury to the state, should be interpreted to mean that such an investigation is not authorized in the absence of an advance directive from the Governor. Brown maintains that, because the Governor did not issue the directive in this case until shortly before she was indicted, the Attorney General's investigation was unauthorized. We find this argument meritless.
OCGA § 45-15-17 (a) authorizes the Attorney General to commence investigations into matters related to the state, and the investigation into "Let's Act" began with the Governor's grant of $10,000 to that organization on September 11, 1995. Therefore, the Attorney General's investigation was permitted under this Code section. Finally, we reject Brown's argument that the Attorney General should not have been allowed to prosecute the case, as OCGA § 45-15-3 (3) provides that the Attorney General will represent the state in criminal actions when required to do so by the Governor.
7. Lastly, Brown argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a continuance based upon the failure of American Express to comply with her subpoena for certain records and documents. The record reflects, however, that Brown sought dismissal of the indictment as a discovery sanction for American Express's failure to produce the requested documents, as ordered by the court. Although the court denied the motion to dismiss at the pretrial hearing, the court also offered to revisit the issue if it became apparent during trial that the defense had been denied relevant documents. Brown did not renew the motion during trial when cross-examining Craig concerning American Express's failure to produce the records, which Brown claimed were relevant to show that she was "singled out" for prosecution by American Express. In any event, the court sustained the state's relevancy objection to that line of questioning during cross-examination.
Although Brown contends that her trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by the trial court's actions, she has failed to cite any authority to support this point or to show the relevance of the documents she was unable to obtain. As such, this enumeration is deemed abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2).
Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P. J., and, Barnes, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|