Faulk v. State, 23485.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 23485.,23485. |
| Parties | FAULK. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The court did not commit harmful error in ruling out the testimony of which complaint is made. Things that happen subsequently to a crime and the swearing out of a warrant are generally not admissible to show motive on the part of the prosecutor for such prosecution. The evidence which the court refused to admit might have been admissible to show interest, but not motive of the prosecutor in the prosecution, and thereby discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix, but the error in excluding it will not cause a reversal of the judgment, as the error was harmless, in that the verdict rendered was demanded.
2. The court did not err in refusing to allow counsel for defendant to recross-examine the prosecutrix, as no new matter was elicited from the witness on redirect examination. Especially is this true as there was no contention on the part of counsel for the defendant that any special question was desired to be asked or that he was deprived of showing any special defense.
3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, as the verdict was demanded.
Error from Superior Court, Cook County; W. R. Smith, Judge.
Mrs. W. M. Faulk was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and she brings error. Affirmed.
J. P. Knight, of Nashville, and H. W. Nelson, of Adel, for plaintiff in error.
H. C. Morgan, Sol. Gen., of Homerville, for the State.
Mrs. W. M. Faulk was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder; it being alleged in the indictment that on the 16th day of March, 1933, she shot Mrs. L. M. Stephens with a pistol. The evidence disclosed that Mrs. Faulk was the operator of a filling station and small store, and that just across the paved highway Mr. L. M. Stephens and his wife also operated a filling station and small store. Trade rivalry, especially over the cutting of prices on gasoline, caused unpleasantness between the neighbors. Mrs. Faulk, prior to the difficulty resulting in the shooting of Mrs. Stephens, had taken out a "peace warrant, " but it was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Mrs. Faulk had rented a house belonging to her, which was near her filling station, to a Mr. Kinard and his wife. On the afternoon of the shooting Mrs. Stephens was visiting Mrs. Kinard, and while she was in the home occupied by Mrs. Kinard, Mrs. Faulk came in and ordered Mrs. Stephens out of the house. The evidence as to what occurred at this point is conflicting; Mrs. Stephens and Mrs. Kinard testifying that Mrs. Faulk cursed Mrs. Stephens and made an unprovoked, assault on her with a stick, and that Mrs. Stephens in defending herself slapped Mrs. Faulk down, and Mrs. Faulk contending that Mrs. Stephens made an unprovoked assault on her and broke her glasses and caused a part of the broken glass to stick in her eye, causing her to lose sight thereof. This first difficulty ended, and Mrs. Faulk went back to her store, and a few minutes later came back with a pistol in her hand, and the uncontradicted evidence developed that she twice shot at Mrs. Stephens, who tried to hide behind the door, and then with a third attempt shot her in the breast, while Mrs. Stephens was trying to get out of Mrs. Faulk's sight.
On April 23, 1933, after the shooting of Mrs. Stephens and after Mrs. Faulk had been arrested therefor and put in jail, L. H. Stephens instituted suit against Mrs. Faulk for the loss of the use of services of his wife by reason of the wound inflicted on her by Mrs. Faulk. Mrs. Faulk, in a cross-action, alleged that L. H. Stephens conspired with Mrs. Stephens and procured her to make an assault upon Mrs. Faulk and cause injury toher eye, and claimed damages in a named sum. Upon the present trial, counsel for the defendant attempted to question the prosecutrix as to whether she knew such "damage suit [by the husband of the prosecutrix] was instituted against Mrs. Faulk while she was in jail"; "that in that damage suit is a cross-action"; and "that your husband with this damage suit had all the property both real and personal that belonged to Mrs. Faulk levied on with an attachment for this...
To continue reading
Request your trial