Brown v. State, 31341
| Decision Date | 07 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31341,31341 |
| Citation | 228 S.E.2d 853,237 Ga. 467 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Lee BROWN v. The STATE. |
Gilberg, Baynard & Owens, Robert E. Baynard, Albany, for appellant.
William S. Lee, Dist. Atty., Hobart M. Hind, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Daryl A. Robinson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Robert Lee Brown appeals from an indictment and conviction for armed robbery and aggravated assault. The appellant's sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial after the State introduced evidence putting his character in issue.
1. The appellant first complains of testimony given by Detective Folsom who interrogated the appellant. The transcript shows the following testimony occurred during cross-examination:
This statement by Detective Folsom that he knew the appellant from a 'previous deal' did not put appellant's character in issue. There is no inference from this testimony that this 'previous deal' was derogatory to the appellant. In Cherry v. State, 220 Ga. 695, 141 S.E.2d 412 (1965), this court held that a police officer's testimony that he had seen the defendant in court three times did not place the defendant's character in issue. See also Woodard v. State, 234 Ga. 901, 218 S.E.2d 629 (1975). There was no evidence in this case to show that this 'previous deal' was in any way connected to the detective's official duties and therefore did not put appellant's character in issue. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for mistrial made while Detective Folsom was testifying.
2. The appellant testified on direct examination in part as follows: The State, on cross-examination, then asked appellant:
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. State
...of Code Ann. § 38-202 and the state responds that the appellant opened the door and such inquiry was proper under Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467, 468, 228 S.E.2d 853 (1976). The district attorney asked, "What is your background?" and the appellant responded "(t)hat I don't have the education."......
-
Berryhill v. State
...waiver in that defense counsel did not object, we find no error. Dick v. State, supra at p. 706, 273 S.E.2d 124; Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467, 228 S.E.2d 853 (1976). 14. Appellant contends in his sixteenth enumeration of error that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial on its......
-
Ailstock v. State, 61822
...cross-examination by testifying on direct that he "tolerated" the victim in order to make a living for his son. See Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467(2), 228 S.E.2d 853 (1976). Appellant's testimony on direct examination did not, however, have the effect of placing his general character in issue.......
-
Emmett v. State
...test the foundation and extent of the witness' knowledge. The trial court did not err in overruling the objection. Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467, 468, 228 S.E.2d 853 (1976); Franklin v. State, 230 Ga. 291, 292, 196 S.E.2d 845 6. Under Code Ann. § 110-109 "it has been repeatedly held that the ......