Beach v. State
Decision Date | 12 June 1912 |
Citation | 75 S.E. 139,138 Ga. 265 |
Parties | BEACH . v. STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
While a witness may be discredited by proper proof that he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (Powell v. State, 122 Ga. 571, 50 S. E. 369), it is not competent to discredit him by showing that he has been simply indicted for such an offense (Slappey v. Sumner, 136 Ga. 692, 71 S. E. 1075); and a mere arrest being a less formal and solemn charge, proof of it is so much the more inadmissible for such purpose (.
(a) Accordingly, on a trial for murder, it was error to permit a witness for the accused to testify on cross-examination, and over appropriate objection of the accused, as follows:
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1126-1128; Dec. Dig. § 345.*]
On the trial of one indicted for murder, the declarations of another person that he alone committed the offense are not admissible in evidence in favor of the accused. Robison v. State, 114 Ga. 445, 40 S. E. 253 (2).
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 950-967; Dec. Dig. § 417.*]
Though a party may, under Civil Code, § 5879, impeach his own witness if he can show to the court that he has been entrapped by the witness by a previous contradictory statement, the rule does not apply where the testimony of a witness is not prejudicial to the party calling him. Nathan v. State, 131 Ga. 48, 61 S. E. 994 (3), and authorities cited.
(a) Accordingly, where a witness for the state, on a trial for murder, testified that he was present when the deceased was shot and killed, and that —it was error, upon the statement of the solicitor general that he had been entrapped by the witness, to allow him to question the witness as to alleged contradictory statements made to the solicitor for the purpose of laying the foundation for impeaching him, and to substantially prove by another witness for the state that the witness whom it was sought to impeach had previously stated to the solicitor general that the shot that killed the deceased came from the accused.
(b) Such error was not cured by an instruction of the court to the jury that the testimony of the impeaching witness as to what was said by the witness so attacked was not to be considered as proving facts that the solicitor general thought the assailed witness would testify to,
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1094, 1099, 1100, 1210-1219; Dec. Dig. §§ 321, 380;* Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3129-3135; Dec. Dig. § 1170 1/2.*]
On a trial for murder, where the contention of the accused was that he did not commit the homicide and that he was in no way concerned in it, it was not accurate to instruct the jury as follows: "Where a homicide was shown to have been committed, and no circumstances of extenuation or palliation were disclosed at the time of proof of the homicide, then a presumption arises that the killing was murder, and the burden would be upon the defendant to show that the offense committed under those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. State
... ... State, 197 Ga. 641(9), 30 S.E.2d 259 (1944); Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265, 75 S.E. 139 (1912); Robison v. State, 114 Ga. 445, 40 S.E. 253 (1901). This has been the law in Georgia for over one hundred years. Lowry v. State, 100 Ga. 574, 28 S.E. 419 (1897); Delk v. State, 99 Ga. 667(3), 26 S.E. 752 (1896); Briscoe v. State, 95 Ga. 496, 20 S.E. 211 ... ...
-
Bryant v. State
... ... principle has been applied where it was sought to introduce ... the confession of a third party who was not accused of having ... any connection with the crime. Moughon v. State, 57 ... Ga. 102(3); Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199(1); ... Lowry v. State, 100 Ga. 574, 28 S.E. 419; Beach ... v. State, 138 Ga. 265(2), 75 S.E. 139; West v ... State, 155 Ga. 482(1), 117 S.E. 380; Johnson v ... State, 188 Ga. 662(1), 4 S.E.2d 813 ... The ... same principle has been applied to the admission of ... confessions by one who was jointly indicted with the ... ...
-
Vincent v. State
... ... Davis v. State, 60 Ga.App. 772, 773(2) (5 SE2d 89); Smallwood v. State, 95 Ga.App. 766(3) (98 SE2d 602); Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265(1), [ (75 SE 139) ]. Neither may general bad character be proved by individual acts. Johnson v. State, 61 Ga. 305(2); Davis v. State, 60 Ga. [App.] 772, 774 [5 S.E.2d 89], supra." McCarty v. State, 139 Ga.App. 101(1), 103, 227 S.E.2d 898. While Georgia is among those ... ...
-
Tilley v. Page, 73024
... ... 100] upon a person convicted of any offense under the laws of this state ... " (Emphasis supplied.) ... Mrs. Tilley's shoplifting conviction was not sought to be used as a conclusive admission by her of her ... Whitley v. State, 188 Ga. 177(5), 3 S.E.2d 588 (1939); Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265(1), 75 S.E. 139 (1912); Davis v. State, 169 Ga.App. 422(1), 313 S.E.2d 127 (1984); Strickland v. State, 166 Ga.App. 702, 305 ... ...