Barfield v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67669,67669 |
| Citation | 170 Ga.App. 796,318 S.E.2d 219 |
| Parties | BARFIELD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard H. Bishoff, Thomaston, for appellant.
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., Paschal A. English, Jr., J. David Fowler, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery. He now contends the trial court erred in failing to sequester prosecution witnesses by refusing to instruct them not to discuss the case among themselves, and as a result a prosecution witness was influenced by other witnesses. Appellant also contends error by admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim's body after her appearance was altered by surgery.
1. Appellant claims prejudice in the denial of his request that prosecution witnesses be instructed not to discuss the case with each other after the state invoked the rule of sequestration (OCGA § 24-9-61), because a state witness testified she had discussed the case with other state witnesses. The record discloses that on cross-examination of the victim's nine-year old daughter, she testified that all of the witnesses outside [in the room where sequestered] had helped her a little bit with her story so she would remember what to say when she testified. Appellant's request to strike this witness' testimony was denied, and appellant contends the court's refusal to instruct the witnesses not to discuss the case and the court's refusal to strike the testimony of the victim's daughter was reversible error. We do not agree.
Violation of the sequestration rule does not affect admissibility of the testimony. Wright v. State, 246 Ga. 53(1), 268 S.E.2d 645 (1980). "In the interest of clarity and uniformity, in conformity with the trend toward witness competency, ... we hold that a witness who has violated the rule of sequestration in a criminal case shall not be prevented from testifying." Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. 328, 347(10), 276 S.E.2d 224 (1981). Appellant's recourse under the circumstances was to seek an instruction informing the jury that the witnesses had possibly violated the rule of sequestration by telling the victim's daughter what to say, and such violation should be considered in determining the weight and credit to be given to her testimony. Wright, Jordan, supra.
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting a photograph into evidence depicting material alterations in the victim's body caused by surgery following the aggravated battery.
Appellant was charged with aggravated battery in that he caused bodily harm to Shirley Barfield "by rendering her body useless and seriously disfiguring the face of said Shirley Barfield ..." At the time of trial Mrs. Barfield was still hospitalized and the state offered a photograph of her in her hospital bed so the jury could determine if she was seriously disfigured, as alleged. The photograph showed an injury to Mrs. Barfield's forehead. The photograph also showed a bandage over her right eye, a tube to her nose, a device in her mouth (apparently to assist in breathing), and another tube of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polke v. State, A91A1677
... ... Thus, it was relevant to show that the house was appellant's residence. "Photographs which are relevant to any issue in the case are admissible even though they may have an effect upon the jury. [Cit.]" Barfield v. State, 170 Ga.App. 796, 797(2), 318 S.E.2d 219 (1984). See also Ramey v. State, 250 Ga. 455, 456(1), 298 S.E.2d 503 (1983) ... 5. Appellant enumerates as error the instruction given the jury regarding the photograph, urging that it amounted to an impermissible comment on the ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
...a factual issue for the jury to resolve. See Grace v. State, 210 Ga.App. 718, 719(2), 437 S.E.2d 485 (1993); Barfield v. State, 170 Ga.App. 796, 797(2), 318 S.E.2d 219 (1984). Nor was the State required to present expert testimony from a physician to prove serious disfigurement. See Hollowa......
-
Lewis v. State
...Consequently, Linda Freeman's physical injuries as a result of the shooting were relevant to the allegations. See Barfield v. State, 170 Ga.App. 796, 797(2), 318 S.E.2d 219; Miller v. State, 155 Ga.App. 54, 55(4), 270 S.E.2d 466. We find no abuse of discretion. Watts v. State, 200 Ga.App. 5......
-
Grace v. State
...scar on Hinton's chin would be permanent. Whether that scar constituted serious disfigurement was a jury question. Barfield v. State, 170 Ga.App. 796, 318 S.E.2d 219 (1984); Thompson v. State, 156 Ga.App. 1, 273 S.E.2d 894 (1980), cert. denied. The trial court did not err in refusing to dir......