Choran v. State
| Decision Date | 02 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9485. |
| Citation | 95 S.E. 531,22 Ga.App. 117 |
| Parties | CHORAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where there is some evidence to authorize the verdict, and it is approved by the trial judge, this court cannot interfere.
The credibility of a witness is a matter to be determined by the jury, and neither bad character nor conviction of crime renders a witness incompetent.
The newly discovered evidence, being merely cumulative and impeaching in its character, was not cause for a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.
Arthur Choran was convicted of selling liquor, his motion for a new trial was denied, and he brings error. Affirmed.
James & Bedgood, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
J. R Hutcheson, Sol. Gen., of Douglasville, for the State.
HARWELL J. (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant's own witness testified that he tried to get some whisky from the defendant on the day the defendant was charged with having sold it. This was a circumstance which the jury had a right to take into consideration. The defendant in his statement admitted that he had sold whisky illegally, that he had been convicted several times of so doing, and that he was at that time under sentence for selling whisky, and that he had a motion for a new trial pending. The testimony of the state's witness, Dorris included every material fact necessary to convict the defendant, and undoubtedly made out a case against him. Where no error of law is committed, as in the instant case, and there is some evidence on which to base the verdict, this court has no authority to interfere. Edge v. Thomas, 9 Ga.App. 559, 71 S.E. 875; Toole v. Jones, 19 Ga.App. 24, 90 S.E. 732.
There was testimony that the state's principal witness had whisky on the day that he was alleged to have bought it from defendant, and he admitted having sold it and being under indictment for selling it; still the jury had a right to believe him, and evidently did believe him. The credibility of a witness is a matter to be determined by the jury, and neither bad character nor conviction of crime renders a witness incompetent. Penal Code, § 1054; Stone v. State, 118 Ga. 705, 45 S.E. 630, 98 Am.St.Rep. 145 (6); Ray v State, 91 Ga. 87, 16 S.E. 311 (1); Pace v. City of Hazlehurst, 9 Ga.App.
203, 70 S.E 967.
The newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative and impeaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial