Andrews v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1903 |
| Citation | 118 Ga. 1,43 S.E. 852 |
| Parties | ANDREWS. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL, LAW—OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE— MURDER—CHARACTER OF DECEASED—EVIDENCE — WITNESS — IMPEACHMENT — INSTRUCTIONS.
1. All evidence is admitted as of course, unless a valid ground of objection is interposed, the burden being on the objecting party to state at the time some specific reason why it should not be admitted. A failure to make such ob jection will be treated as a waiver, and prevent the court, on a motion for a new trial, from inquiring as to the competency of the evidence.
2. A specific battery does not necessarily tend to establish one's general character for violence, and on a trial for murder, where it was sought to show the character of the deceased for turbulence, it was inadmissible to prove a particular act of violence.
3. A witness cannot be impeached by introducing a record of his conviction for misdemeanor, it not appearing that the offense for which he had been found guilty was one involving moral turpitude.
4. There was no evidence that the accused provoked the assault by the use of opprobrious words, and therefore it was proper to refuse to give the charge taken from the opinion in Butler v. State, 19 S. E. 51, 92 Ga. 603 (4).
5. Where the court, of his own motion, prevented defendant's counsel from asking a particular question of the state's witness, an exception to such ruling must in some way indicate wherein the defendant has been injured by the exclusion of the answer.
6. The special requests, so far as proper, were covered in the court's general charge, which was full and fair; the verdict was supported by the evidence; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Montgomery County; D. M. Roberts, Judge.
W. S. Andrews was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
C. D. Loud and J. B. Geiger, for plaintiff in error.
J. F. De Lacy, Sol. Gen., Graham & Graham, and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.
LAMAR, J. A party offering evidence is not required in the first instance to show that it is competent, for all evidence is admitted as of course, unless a valid ground of objection is interposed by the opposite party, or by the court of its own motion, to prevent the introduction of needless or irrelevant testimony. In a sense all evidence is prima facie admissible, and the burden is upon the objecting party to state at the time some reason why it should not be admitted. It will not be sufficient for him to say, "I object, " or, "I object because the evidence is not competent" or "is inadmissible." The attention of the court must be called to the specific ground of objection at the time the evidence is offered, and a failure so to do will be considered as a waiver. The fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds of the motion for new trial assign as error that the court allowed certain evidence "over the objection of the defendant." It docs not appear what the objection was, nor that the ground thereof was urged at the time the evidence was admitted. An unbroken line of decisions of this court holds that such an assignment of error cannot be considered. Meeks v. Lofley, 99 Ga. 170, 25 S. E. 92 (2); Steed v. Cruise, 70 Ga. 176; Jackson v. Jackson, 47 Ga. 99; Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 140 (4); Christian v. State, 86 Ga. 430, 12 S. E. 645; Harris v. Lumber Co., 97 Ga. 465, 25 S. E. 519.
The character for violence both of the deceased and accused had been put in issue. The court properly refused to allow the defendant to prove specific acts of violence on the part of the deceased towards his wife. Ordinarily, even the general character of the parties is inadmissible, and their conduct in other transactions is especially irrelevant. Civ. Code 1895, § 5159. In a trial for murder, the general character of the deceased for turbulence and violence may be shown, but specific acts are inadmissible. Pound v. State, 43 Ga. 128; Doyal v. State, 70 Ga. 147; Thornton v. State, 107 Ga. 687, 33 S. E. 673. On the same principle, the general character of a witness for truth may be shown for the purpose of impeachment, but specific acts cannot be made the subject of inquiry (Civ. Code 1895, § 5293), and for the reason that every man is supposed to be able at a moment's notice to establish his general character for truthfulness or for peace-ableness; but the best, as well as the worst, might often be unable to explain a single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alderman v. State
...54 (1973). The Georgia contemporaneous objection rule is based upon both court rule (Code Ann. § 24-3362) and case law. Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1, 43 S.E. 852 (1903). The rule is applicable to constitutional questions. E. g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561, 563, 192 S.E.2d 907 (1972). The ......
-
Davis v. Buie
... ... appear that the objections were urged before the trial judge ... when he ruled on the question of admitting the evidence ... objected to. Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1, 43 S.E ... 852; Georgia R. R. v. Daniel, 135 Ga. 108(2), 68 ... S.E. 1024; Hassell & Powell v. Woodstock Iron Works, 137 ... ...
-
Boggs v. Griffeth Bros. Tire Co., 46696
...will be considered as a waiver. All evidence is admitted as a matter of course unless a valid ground of objection is interposed. Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1(1, 3), 43 S.E. 852 and cases cited therein; McKee v. Hurst & Co., 21 Ga.App. 571(2), 94 S.E. 886 and cases cited therein. Complaint is......
-
McKee v. J.E. Hurst & Co.
...51 S.E. 636; Pool v. Warnen County, 123 Ga. 207, 51 S.E. 328 (3); Powell v. Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry., 121 Ga. 805, 49 S.E. 759; Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1 (1), 3. S.E. 852; Frey v. Macon Sash Door & Lbr. Co., 112 Ga. 242 (2), 244, 37 S.E. 376; Wilkinson v. State, 18 Ga.App. 330, 89 S.E. 46......