Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 18 October 1939
• Docket Number: No. 27818.,27818.
• Citation: 5 S.E.2d 89
• Parties: DAVIS. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

5 S.E.2d 89

DAVIS.

v.STATE.

No. 27818.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Oct. 18, 1939.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.

R. R. Davis was convicted of an offense involving a bribery scheme, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Howard, Tiller & Howard and John H. Hudson, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Boykin, Sol.Gen., J. Walter Le Craw, and E. E. Andrews, all of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

GUERRY, Judge.

1.Testimony of a witness who swears to transactions had with the defendant in reference to payment by him to the defendant of money as a part of a bribery scheme, of making a daily record of such transactions, was not objectionable on the ground that such record was the best evidence.The witness was not testifying as to the contents of a writing, but merely that he had put into writing an account of his actions.

2.It was proper to exclude testimony offered to show that the witness had been indicted for murder but not convicted, as a basis for his impeachment.Wheeler v. State, 4 Ga.App. 325 (2), 61 S.E. 409;Gardner v. State, 81 Ga. 144, 7 S.E. 144;Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265, 75 S.E. 139.Testimony by which it is sought to go into the details of the transactions on which the indictment was found, having no relation to the case on trial and offered merely for impeachment purposes, is clearly inadmissible.Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1, 43 S.E. 852;Rudulph v. State, 16 Ga.App. 353, 85 S.E. 365;Taylor v. State, 17 Ga. App. 787, 88 S.E. 696;Johnson v. State, 61 Ga. 305, 306.

3.A witness for the defendant was asked the question: "Now, I will ask you if you know the general reputation of Railroad Davis [the defendant] for sobriety?"Objection was interposed, that this is not the statutory question, that "general reputation in the community in which he lives, and whether it was good or bad, " is the statutory method, and that reputation for a specific trait is not admissible in behalf of the party who offers the witness.Counsel contended, that, inasmuch as the State had introduced testimony that the defendant had frequently been given quantities of liquor in pint bottles, he expected to show by this answer that defendant was not a drinking man.It is undoubtedly true in this State that if the defendant sought by this testimony to put his character in evidence, the objection was properly sustained.Barnwell v. Hanne-gan, 105 Ga. 396, 31 S.E. 116;Surles v. State, 89 Ga. 167 (5), 15 S.E. 38.The defendant contends that the provision of law, "The general character of the parties, and especially their conduct in other transactions, are irrelevant matter, unless the nature of the action involves such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct, " is applicable, Code, § 38-202, and cites the following civil cases as illustrative thereof: Planters' & Miners' Bank v. Neel, 74 Ga. 576;McClure v. State Banking Company, 6 Ga.App. 303, 65 S.E. 33;Boatright v. Heirs of Porter, 32 Ga. 130;Du Bose v. Du Bose, 75 Ga. 753.A somewhat different rule is applicable in criminal cases.The State may not attack the character of the defendant until the defendant himself puts it in issue.The statutory questions for this purpose are well defined.If the defendant relies on good character, it must be general good character.He can not offer it for attack on one ground alone, as, for instance, sobriety.Testimony may be relevant as pointed out in the code, § 38-201, 38-202, and yet not always be admissible.Character evidence in criminal cases is not admissible for the State or in issue, except where the defendant first puts it in issue.It however may have such weight of itself as to generate a doubt as will prevent conviction.Under the facts shown by the evidence for the State, the defendant received liquor as a...