Rewis v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40469,No. 2,40469,2 |
| Parties | Nathaniel REWIS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In this criminal case it was error to permit a witness, who was a farmer, testifying on behalf of the defendant to be asked on cross examination, purportedly for the purpose of testing his memory, whether he remembered being in the business of making liquor.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment for simple larceny (hog stealing) charging that he and an accomplice stole a barrow hog weighing about 100 pounds approximately six months old, black and white spotted in color, Poland and China breed. The defendant assigns error on the overruling of his motion for new trial on the general and special grounds.
There was evidence that the prosecutor missed one of his hogs and he found some blood in the hog pen; that he noticed two sets of tracks leaving the pen, that had a design like tracks he saw later at the defendant's house. Witnesses who went to the defendant's house the day after the alleged stealing testified that it appeared that a hog had just been cleaned there, that some cracklings had just been cooked out and a fresh pork shoulder was in the refrigerator, and that they saw hog hair in the trunk of the defendant's car, and black and white hair at the place where a hog had been dressed. The alleged accomplice testified that he and the defendant went to the prosecutor's hog lot, that the defendant knocked the hog in the head, and they took it to the defendant's house and butchered, sectioned and wrapped it and took it to the accomplice's house and put it in the freezer; and that he later turned over to the sheriff some of the meat from the hog.
After his arrest and while he was in jail the defendant made a statement to the sheriff and an investigator, and signed a written statement, admitting that he and the accomplice killed a hog in the prosecutor's lot, took it to the defendant's house, cleaned and dressed it, and then carried most of the meat to the accomplice's house.
J. Robert Smith, Blackshear, for plaintiff in error.
Dewey Hayes, Sol. Gen., Douglas, for defendant in error.
1. The officers testified that in obtaining the defendant's statements they questioned the defendant around midnight for about an hour and a half. Special grounds 2 and 3, contending that because of this questioning the statements were not freely and voluntarily made, are without merit. Wilburn v. State, 141 Ga. 510, 511, 81 S.E. 444; Whippler v. State, 218 Ga. 198, 201, 126 S.E.2d 744; King v. State, 28 Ga.App. 751, 753, 113 S.E. 107.
2. In support of the general grounds and some of the special grounds the defendant argues that the circumstantial evidence does not sufficiently corroborate the accomplice's testimony to support a conviction.
It is not required that evidence in corroboration of an accomplice's testimony Hargrove v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 274, 54 S.E. 164; Tootle v. State, 55 Ga.App. 865, 191 S.E. 876; Newman v. State, 63 Ga.App. 417, 11 S.E.2d 248. 'Voluntary confessions are sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice so as to support a verdict of guilty.' Partee v. State, 67 Ga. 570(2); Newman v. State, supra.
In this case the testimony of the accomplice, the defendant's voluntary statement, and the evidence, summarized above, of circumstances that tended to show that the accused participated in the commission of the crime, sufficiently supported the conviction. Worley v. State, 91 Ga.App. 663, 86 S.E.2d 702.
The trial court did not err in overruling the general grounds and special grounds 1, 4, 5 and 7.
3. On cross examination the solicitor asked one of the defendant's witnesses, who was a farmer, if he remembered making time on the chain gang, if he remembered making any liquor, and if he remembered being in the business of making liquor. Over the defendant's objections, the court permitted the witness to answer, 'Yes, I have made some liquor in my life.' The defendant contends that this questioning was an improper effort to impeach the witness by showing his criminal conduct without introducing the record of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. State
...it is necessary to introduce an authenticated copy of the record of the court in which he was convicted.' Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83, 85, 134 S.E.2d 875 (1964)." Rolland v. State, 235 Ga. 808, 811, 221 S.E.2d 582 We note that the defendant was later able to prove in a proper manner that......
-
Ailstock v. State, 61822
...Cf. Stanley, 94 Ga.App. 737, 96 S.E.2d 195, supra; Ralls v. State, 87 Ga.App. 655, 75 S.E.2d 26, supra. See also Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83, 134 S.E.2d 875 (1964). That the prosecutor did not compound the prejudice by continuing the line of questioning (See Mikle v. State, 236 Ga. 748, ......
-
Harwell v. State
...Ledesma have as their source of authority either Rolland v. State, supra, 235 Ga. 808, 221 S.E.2d 582 (which quotes Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83(3), 134 S.E.2d 875 (1964)), or Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488(6), 271 S.E.2d 792 (1980). In Rolland, the State made a best evidence objection ......
-
Norman v. State
...169(2), 86 S.E. 540; Edenfield v. State, 14 Ga.App. 401, 81 S.E. 253; Duke v. Meyers, 86 Ga.App. 271, 71 S.E.2d 297; Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83, 85, 134 S.E.2d 875, but the evidence was unobjected to and, as secondary evidence, was competent proof of the conviction. Rushin v. State, 63 ......