Ford v. State

• Decision Date: 10 April 1893
• Citation: 17 S.E. 667,92 Ga. 459
• Parties: FORD v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

17 S.E. 667

92 Ga. 459

FORD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 10, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The fact that a witness has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is admissible for the purpose of discrediting his evidence. Railroad Co. v. Homer, 73 Ga. 251. When such conviction has been proved it is not error for the court to charge the jury upon the law as to the impeachment of witnesses. Evidence which discredits a witness on the ground of infamy tends to impeach him.

2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

Error from superior court, Sumter county; W. H. Fish, Judge.

John Ford, having been convicted of larceny, and his motion for a new trial having been overruled, brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

Ford was indicted for larceny from the house, of a gold finger ring with diamond setting. He was found guilty, and, his motion for new trial being overruled, excepted. The motion contained the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law evidence, etc. Also, that the court erred in charging "It is always for the jury to determine whether a witness has been impeached or not. It is a question of fact for the jury, and it is for the jury to determine the extent of the impeachment,-- whether or not an attempt at impeachment is successful; and it is for the jury to say considering all the testimony and all the circumstances in the case, whether or not a witness has been impeached, or whether or not they will believe a witness, even though he has been impeached, or an attempt made to impeach him. It is for the jury to say whether they will still believe him." Alleged to be error because it tended to mislead the jury as to the testimony of Dolly Dorsey, and to allow them to pay too much weight to the testimony referred to in ground 4 of the motion as amended; the charge evidently going to the tenor and effect that the evidence referred to in the fourth ground was introduced for the purpose of impeachment. Also, because there being no other witness in behalf of the state or of the defendant who was attempted to be discredited or impeached, and Dolly Dorsey being the only witness so attempted to be impeached, if impeachment there was, and the only one attempted to be discredited under any of the methods known to the law, the charge was error. Also, because the charge tended to lead the jury to believe an impeachment of Dolly Dorsey had been attempted, whereas it was not intended as an impeachment, but as simply to discredit his testimony. There were other grounds of the motion for new trial, one of them being the fourth ground mentioned, which were specified as material to be transmitted to this court, but which are not to be found in the record. The testimony for the state briefly stated, was to the effect that the ring, which cost originally $240, was stolen from the premises of Mr. Fouche between the 26th of April and early in May. Two other rings were also missed. The ring in question was found in the possession of defendant about the middle of May. He said he bought it from a peddler in Macon a year and a half before and...