Boyce v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45180,45180 |
| Citation | 258 Ga. 171,366 S.E.2d 684 |
| Parties | BOYCE v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
W. LaRue Boyce, Jr., pro se.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Robert G. Morton, Barbara B. Conroy, Asst. Dist. Attys., Decatur, for the State.
We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in order to consider whether a criminal defendant may introduce specific acts of good character when the state has introduced specific similar transactions for the purpose of showing scheme and bent of mind, when evidence of such transactions incidentally places the defendant's character in issue. The Court of Appeals held that he could not. Boyce v. State, 184 Ga.App. 578, 362 S.E.2d 229 (1987). We affirm.
1. Wilbur LaRue Boyce, Jr., an attorney, was convicted and sentenced for theft by taking for unlawfully appropriating over $8,000 in insurance proceeds belonging to a client. The defendant claimed his secretary embezzled the money. As part of its case in chief, the state introduced the testimony of two of the defendant's former clients, who related transactions similar to the one on trial, in order to show a common scheme and guilty intent and to negate an innocent state of mind. See generally, Agnor, Agnor's Georgia Evidence § 10-7 (2d Ed.1986). Thereafter, the trial court refused to allow the defendant to call other clients who would testify that the defendant did not steal their funds.
The Court of Appeals properly held that, although the defendant's character was incidentally placed in evidence by the similar transaction evidence, he could not attempt to counter that evidence by presenting, through former clients, specific acts of his good character. 1 Similar events are admissible to show guilty knowledge or unlawful intent, not character. Therefore, because specific acts of good character are not relevant to this purpose, they are not admissible. See McCormick on Evidence §§ 190, 191 (3d Ed.1984). In State v. Braddy, 254 Ga. 366, 367, 330 S.E.2d 338 (1985) (Hill, C.J. and Gregory, J., dissenting), cited by Boyce, the issue was whether a good character charge was required when Braddy testified as to several specific acts of past good conduct. While a majority of this court held that such testimony raised the character issue sufficiently to require a jury charge, the opinion plainly stated that such evidence is not admissible from third parties. Id., at page 367, n. 4, 330 S.E.2d 338. Thus, the defendant, in order to rebut evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rai v. State
...specific acts of past good conduct either to refute [other] evidence or to introduce evidence of his good character.Boyce v. State, 258 Ga. 171, 172(1), 366 S.E.2d 684 (1988). Accord Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392(4), 651 S.E.2d 21 (2007).5 Accordingly, the trial appropriately exercised its di......
-
Banta v. State
...Even if it was, Banta was not authorized to call third parties to testify to specific acts of her past good conduct. Boyce v. State, 258 Ga. 171(1), 366 S.E.2d 684 (1988). In any event, the trial court permitted Banta to call the character witnesses she requested with the only proviso that ......
-
Hill v. State, 76227
...to give in charge)." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Boyce v. State, 184 Ga.App. 578, 580, 362 S.E.2d 229 (1987), aff'd 258 Ga. 171, 366 S.E.2d 684 (1988). Judgment McMURRAY, P.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...
-
Obiozor v. State
...similar transactions is admissible even though the defendant's character is incidentally placed in evidence thereby (see Boyce v. State, 258 Ga. 171, 366 S.E.2d 684). Any danger arising from this incidental placing of an appellant's character in evidence is offset when a balancing test is a......