Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 12 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. S90G0861,S90G0861 |
| Citation | 260 Ga. 338,393 S.E.2d 260 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
T. Stanley Sunderland, Buford, for Davis.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Sol. State Court of Gwinnett County and Rosanna Musengo, Asst. Sol., Lawrenceville, for the State.
John Miron Davis was charged by accusation with battery and simple battery. He was tried by a jury and acquitted of the battery charge, but convicted of simple battery. Davis brought this appeal seeking a reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming his conviction. Davis v. State, 194 Ga.App. 833, 392 S.E.2d 253 (1990). This Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a limiting instruction as to the testimony of his neighbor, Ms. Joyce Goodroe. We reverse.
During a heated argument in their home, Davis struck his wife in the face. Mrs. Davis immediately ran from the house to a neighbor's doorstep and began beating on the door. Another neighbor, Ms. Goodroe, testified that she saw Davis chase after his wife, proceed to drag her from the door, and kick her several times.
The accusation charged Davis with simple battery for striking his wife in the face while in their home. The battery to which Goodroe testified was not charged in the accusation, and the trial court admitted her testimony over objection without any limiting instructions. Davis contends that without such a limiting instruction, it was possible for the jury to convict him of simple battery based solely on Goodroe's testimony and not upon the battery charged in the accusation.
There is no dispute that the evidence is admissible for some purposes. Rather, the dispute centers on whether the trial court should have given a limiting instruction. The State acknowledges the general rule set forth in Harrell v. State, 241 Ga. 181, 186, 243 S.E.2d 890 (1978), but argues that the rule only applies to non-probative evidence. We do not agree.
While we agree Goodroe's testimony is clearly admissible for some purpose such as to show state of mind or a similar transaction, the probative value of her testimony is potentially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to appellant--in the absence of a limiting instruction. Without a limiting instruction to the jury as to what Goodroe's testimony is evidence of, it is possible the jury convicted Davis of simple battery based solely on the conduct to which Goodroe testified, an uncharged battery.
The comments accompanying the trial judge's refusal to give a limiting instruction best exemplify the prejudicial nature of Goodroe's testimony:
There's no reason that I can see why I should instruct the jury that they cannot consider any evidence of a simple battery having occurred on her, and there is no reason why the jury cannot find that what she witnessed was simple battery, and convict him on the basis of that offense having occurred in her presence, so I am denying that motion.
Clearly, this is an inaccurate statement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Belt
...which has been branded as being "highly and inherently prejudicial" evidence. I believe that our more recent opinion in Davis v. State, 260 Ga. 338, 393 S.E.2d 260 (1990), is more applicable than Harrell when the prejudicial evidence that is extrinsic act evidence is involved. In Davis, we ......
-
Peterson v. State
...Moore v. State, 202 Ga.App. 476(3), 414 S.E.2d 705 (1992); Barnett v. State, 178 Ga.App. 685(1), 344 S.E.2d 665 (1986); Davis v. State, 260 Ga. 338, 393 S.E.2d 260 (1990) (no limiting instructions given upon 4. In his fourth enumeration, Peterson argues that he was denied the right to effec......
-
Thomas v. State
...court. See generally Brown v. State, 263 Ga. 89, 91(2), 428 S.E.2d 78; Head v. State, 262 Ga. 795, 798(4), 426 S.E.2d 547; Davis v. State, 260 Ga. 338, 393 S.E.2d 260; Head v. State, 253 Ga. 429, 432(3)(d), 322 S.E.2d The transcript reveals that the evidence of appellant's prior felony conv......
-
Gregory v. State
...that he had been driving and had not seen the stop sign or the other car. Gregory, supra at 666, 627 S.E.2d 79. Davis v. State, 260 Ga. 338, 393 S.E.2d 260 (1990), cited by Gregory as authority for his claim that a limiting instruction was necessary, is not on point and does not concern pri......