Bobo v. State, 38144
| Decision Date | 11 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38144,No. 2,38144,2 |
| Citation | 101 Ga.App. 226,113 S.E.2d 468 |
| Parties | Mrs. Lester BOBO v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph E. Loggins, Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, for plaintiff in error.
Earl B. Self, Solicitor, Summerville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was found guilty of illegally selling alcoholic and intoxicating liquors to wit: vodka. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds and one special ground.
As to the general grounds, the testimony of the prosecuting witness that she saw the defendant sell her business associate a bottle containing vodka is sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. However, the testimony is in very sharp dispute as to this question. The testimony of the prosecuting witness is the sole testimony bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and it is in direct conflict with the testimony of four other witnesses and the defendant's statement. As to the evidence, it is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment of guilty as to the general grounds.
The one special ground assigns error because it is alleged that the court committed reversible error in admitting certain testimony, over objections of the movant. This objection is to a conversation between the prosecuting witness and another, outside of the presence of the defendant and is objected to as being hearsay testimony. Counsel who offered the testimony stated that it 'went to show conduct.' It appears that the court admitted it for that purpose only. The record shows that counsel for the defendant objected to the testimony of the prosecuting witness that 'I told Bobby Cagle to get off my property, that he had given him liquor and got him drunk, and to get off my property and stay off of it.' Leading up to this testimony and the objection to it, was testimony showing that the witness, Mrs. Townsend, was associated with another in the operation of a restaurant, service station and garage in Cloudland; that her business associate ran the gasoline pumps and the garage; that on the day in question he was assisting a son of the defendant in making repairs to an automobile; that she came outside the restaurant where they were thus engaged and found her business associate drunk. Then the following question was asked by the solicitor general: 'Who was working on Bobby Cagle's car?' Answer (by Mrs. Lavonda Townsend): Defense counsel objected because it was testimony of a conversation with another not in the presence of the defendant and was accordingly hearsay. The solicitor general then stated that it was being offered to show conduct. The objection was overruled and the court allowed the testimony for the purpose of showing conduct only.
Subsequent testimony disclosed that, pursuant to this demand on the part of the prosecuting witness, Bobby Cagle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v. State, 52181
...It was not error to admit the evidence in question merely because it might have a prejudicial effect on the defendant. Bobo v. State, 101 Ga.App. 266, 268, 113 S.E.2d 468. See Cowart v. State, 30 Ga.App. 289(1), 117 S.E. 663; McGregor v. State, 119 Ga.App. 40, 41, 165 S.E.2d 915, and cases ......
-
Veasey v. State, 41759
...was not error as contended in the defendant's enumeration of error. Morris v. State, 100 Ga.App. 457, 111 S.E.2d 655; Bobo v. State, 101 Ga.App. 266, 113 S.E.2d 468; Echols v. State, 94 Ga.App. 898, 96 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. NICHOLS, P.J., and DEEN, J., concur. ...