Coleman v. State, 46167
| Decision Date | 17 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 46167,46167,1 |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 608,124 Ga.App. 313 |
| Parties | Eugene COLEMAN v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Reily, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Tony H. Hight, Amber W. Anderson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted of theft by taking.
1. During the course of the trial the State called a police officer as a witness. The defendant objected to calling this officer 'inasmush as he was not listed on the list of witnesses that was furnished when I made my demand prior to arraignment.' The objection was overruled and the witness was allowed to testify. Defendant claims that this witness should not have been permitted to testify in view of Code Ann. § 27-1403, as amended, which provides: It is imperative that a demand be made before the provisions of the cited Code section are operative. Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 721, 157 S.E.2d 734. By the terms of the statute a demand must be made 'previous to his arraignment.' Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283, 286, 161 S.E.2d 302. A proper demand must be made upon the district attorney or an assistant district attorney. Green v. State, 223 Ga. 611, 157 S.E.2d 257. There is nothing in the record showing to whom the demand alluded to by defense counsel was made, when it was made, from whom counsel received the list of witnesses, whose names appeared on the list, or the list itself. There was no error.
2. A witness for the State was allowed to testify over objection that he went to a multiple-story parking area, the scene of the alleged crime, because it had been reported to him that persons were breaking into automobiles in the parking lot. The trial court in admitting this testimony instructed the jury that it was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the officer's conduct, and not for the purpose of proving the accuracy of what was told the officer. Code § 38-302 provides: 'When, in a legal investigation, information, conversations, letters and replies, and similar evidence are facts to explain conduct and ascertain motives, they shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. State
...a knife described by the victim. This testimony was admissible to explain the officer's conduct. Code Ann. § 38-302; Coleman v. State, 124 Ga.App. 313, 183 S.E.2d 608. This enumeration is without 6. Appellant's contention that the trial court's charge: "The defendant's plea of not guilty is......
-
Bruce v. State
...State, 191 Ga. 686, 698(14), 13 S.E.2d 820 (1941); Phillips v. State, 206 Ga. 418, 419(3), 57 S.E.2d 555 (1950); Coleman v. State, 124 Ga.App. 313, 314(2), 183 S.E.2d 608 (1971)." (Emphasis supplied.) Nobles v. State, 139 Ga.App. 371(2), 228 S.E.2d 391 The appellant's wife told the agent th......
-
Armstrong v. State, s. 62663
...should be is insufficient to raise an issue for review. Blount v. State, 143 Ga.App. 845(2), 240 S.E.2d 216. Accord, Coleman v. State, 124 Ga.App. 313(3), 183 S.E.2d 608 and cases therein 4. "Conspiracy consists in a corrupt agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, the e......
-
Gasaway v. State, 51530
...of explaining the witness' conduct. This ruling was correct. Phillips v. State, 206 Ga. 418, 419, 57 S.E.2d 555; Coleman v. State, 124 Ga.App. 313, 314(2), 183 S.E.2d 608. Judgment BELL, C.J., and STOLZ, J., concur. ...