Barnett v. State, 72109
| Decision Date | 07 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72109,72109 |
| Citation | 344 S.E.2d 665,178 Ga.App. 685 |
| Parties | BARNETT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lynn W. Wilson, Barnesville, for appellant.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., Tommy K. Floyd, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Samuel F. Barnett was convicted of aggravated assault on a peace officer and was sentenced to serve ten years in a state penal institution. The evidence showed that a deputy sheriff went to Barnett's home to serve a juvenile court order. An altercation occurred when Barnett's wife grabbed some papers from the deputy's hand and he grabbed them back. Mrs. Barnett began to yell, "He hit me!" Appellant came around the corner of the house, heard his wife screaming, went inside the house and returned with a screwdriver in his hand. He either pointed or swung the screwdriver at the deputy and threatened him. The deputy drew his gun, and appellant retreated. Barnett appeals, following the denial of his motion for a new trial.
1. Barnett contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury not to consider in their deliberations his general character or conduct in transactions other than that for which he was on trial.
The evidence showed that a Department of Family and Children Services caseworker accompanied the deputy to the Barnett residence, but remained in the car while the deputy served the papers because she had been previously ordered off the property by Barnett. She testified extensively as to appellant's general character and eccentric lifestyle without objection. While the testimony that the caseworker accompanied the deputy to the Barnetts to facilitate service was admissible as background information to explain why the deputy was on the premises when the assault occurred, her testimony as to Barnett's character and lifestyle was wholly irrelevant because none of it dealt with the specific act for which appellant was tried. Moreover, the caseworker did not witness the assault because she remained in the deputy's car. Her testimony includes allegations that he committed sexual offenses against his daughter and physical abuse against his children, kept his family living in primitive conditions, and allowed goats and other animals to roam freely through the family's living quarters and the children's sleeping quarters; and that his daughter ran away from home to escape his abusive treatment of her. Defense counsel objected only twice: once to testimony about the daughter's emotional problems, and a second time to the caseworker's testimony that she had shown letters Barnett had written his daughter to a psychologist for analysis and he found that the accused could be very dangerous. Objection to this latter testimony was made only after the testimony was given. Appellant's counsel on appeal argues that the caseworker's unobjected-to extensive testimony was highly prejudicial and that the trial court, absent a request, should have included in its charge to the jury an instruction to disregard the testimony of his general character or his conduct in other transactions which were totally unrelated to the act for which he was being tried.
The admission into evidence of other crimes, wholly independent of that for which the defendant is on trial, is error. Riggins v. Stynchcombe, 231 Ga. 589, 203 S.E.2d 208 (1974). The facts in this case do not bring it within any of the exceptions to the general rule. Rich v. State, 254 Ga. 11, 13, 325 S.E.2d 761 (1985); Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983). The jury in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused with respect to the offense charged should be blind to the character, station in life and prior conduct of the accused unless he voluntarily inserts these issues into his trial. Riggins v. Stynchcombe, supra. A defendant, however, may voluntarily waive his right not to have his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roura v. State
...on the essential elements are usually harmful as a matter of law so as to invoke OCGA § 5-5-24(c). [Cit.]"). In Barnett v. State, 178 Ga.App. 685(1), 344 S.E.2d 665 (1986), the trial court's failure to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony of appellant's general character or conduct ......
-
Smith v. State
...Sharp, supra 183 Ga.App. at 643, 360 S.E.2d 50. We do not find substantial error as defined in OCGA § 5-5-24 (c). Barnett v. State, 178 Ga.App. 685, 344 S.E.2d 665 (1986) is not persuasive. There, in addition to the fact that no objection was made by defendant to the evidence or the charge,......
-
Laney v. State, 74474
...to deprive appellant of her right to a fair trial and thus require reversal of her conviction and a new trial. See Barnett v. State, 178 Ga.App. 685(1), 344 S.E.2d 665 (1986); cf. Maynard v. State, 171 Ga.App. 605(2), 320 S.E.2d 806 (1984). But see Irvin v. Oliver, 223 Ga. 193(2), 154 S.E.2......
-
Miller v. State
...law, regardless of whether objection was made or not. Maynard v. State, 171 Ga.App. 605, 320 S.E.2d 806 (1984); Barnett v. State, 178 Ga.App. 685, 686(1), 344 S.E.2d 665 (1986); see Crawford v. State, 254 Ga. 435, 438-439, n. 4, 330 S.E.2d 567 (1985). In order to satisfy this standard, appe......