Edenfield v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5367.) |
| Citation | 81 S.E. 253,14 Ga. App. 401 |
| Parties | EDENFIELD. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
As the offense of selling intoxicating liquor is not one of those offenses involving moral turpitude, a witness cannot be impeached by proof that he has violated this law. Wheeler v. State, 4 Ga. App. 325, 61 S. E. 409. The court did not err in excluding testimony to the effect that a witness whom it was sought to impeach was considered a liquor seller, and that his reputation about selling liquor was bad.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1120, 1125-1128; Dec. Dig. §§ 344, 345.*]
The court did not err in instructing the jury that the question as to whether a witness was successfully impeached, or as to whether the witness, if impeached, had been corroborated, or as to whether the jury would believe the witness, even though they might believe he had been impeached by proof of general bad character, were all questions for the jury's determination.
The court did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered testimony. The evidence alleged to be newly discovered might have been obtained prior to the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence; and, in
addition, the alleged newly discovered testimony is merely cumulative or impeaching.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law. Cent. Dig. §§ 2306-2315, 2317; Dec. Dig. § 938.*]
The evidence fully warranted the conviction of the accused, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.
O. E. Edenfield was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
W. W. Larsen, of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
RUSSELL, C. J. Judgment affirmed. ROAN, J., absent on account of sickness.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. State
...The judgment of conviction was the highest and best evidence of that fact, Howard v. State, 144 Ga. 169(2), 86 S.E. 540; Edenfield v. State, 14 Ga.App. 401, 81 S.E. 253; Duke v. Meyers, 86 Ga.App. 271, 71 S.E.2d 297; Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83, 85, 134 S.E.2d 875, but the evidence was u......
-
State v. Johnson
... ... 541, 252 ... S.W. 511, where the offense was drunkenness in a public ... place; and Shamblin v. State , 88 Tex. Crim ... 589, 228 S.W. 241, where the offense was drinking and ... exceeding a speed limit. So too as to other violations of ... regulations of intoxicating liquors. Edenfield v ... State , 14 Ga.App. 401, 81 S.E. 253; People ... v. Spain , 157 Ill.App. 49; Palmer v ... Cedar Rapids , etc. , 113 Iowa 442, 85 N.W ... 756; Hightower v. State , 60 Tex. Crim. 109, ... 131 S.W. 324 ... Let it ... be assumed that some violations of liquor laws, ... ...