Fowler v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33155,No. 2,33155,2 |
| Citation | 82 Ga.App. 197,60 S.E.2d 473 |
| Parties | FOWLER v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It was not error for the trial court to permit a witness for the State to give her opinion in evidence that the defendant was intoxicated, she having satisfactorily shown that she had opportunity to observe and did observe the defendant's condition as to whether or not he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
2. Proof of other transactions, although criminal, may be admitted in evidence against a defendant on trial in a criminal case where there is some logical connection between the two acts from which it can be said that proof of the one tends to establish some essential element of the other. The general rule is that proof of other transactions is not admissible, and in order for it to be made so it must fall within some well defined exception.
3. The special grounds complaining of the failure to charge in some respects, and of the Court's charge as given in others, are without merit for the reasons set out in the corresponding division of this opinion.
4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and has the approval of the trial court. No error of law appearing, it will not be disturbed by this court.
James Fowler was indicted, tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Putnam County on a charge of assault with intent to murder, in that he did make an assault on one W. R. Dennis with an automobile, a weapon and agency likely to produce death, and did with malice aforethought and with reckless disregard for human life and intent to kill drive an automobile over and into another automobile in which the said W. R. Dennis was riding, inflicting serious wounds, and did fail to drive to the right of the center of the road so as to pass without interference, and was operating said automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. From the evidence adduced at the trial the jury was authorized to find facts substantially as follows: That early in the evening of October 21, 1949, W. R. Dennis and his wife were proceeding on U. S. Highway 129 in Putnam County, Georgia, on the right side of the road and at a speed of about 35 miles per hour; that Mrs. Dennis was driving; that a car driven by the defendant suddenly approached them on the wrong side of the road and collided with them head-on; that Mrs. Dennis was severely bruised and her husband suffered a fractured skill, loss of his kneecap and other serious and permanent injuries; that immediately after the wreck Fowler emerged from the car staggering; that Mrs. Dennis accused him of being drunk; that he made no answer, but shortly thereafter fell down on the road; that he was not injured; that a few minutes later he came to the car and started cursing one of the persons there; that the witness was afraid he would strike this person but was assured that Fowler was too drunk to do so; that from the skid marks and positions of the automobiles it appeared that the wreck occurred on the Dennis' side of the road; that the defendant had the odor of liquor on his breath when examined at the hospital; that about an hour before this wreck one Watter Jones, a witness for the State, was sideswiped by a Plymouth car while driving along U. S. Highway 129; that the driver of the Plymouth did not stop; that the State Patrol investigated and found at the point of impact a piece of black metal torn from the fender of an automobile; that this fitted exactly into the fender of the Fowler car, a part of which was missing. James Hanson, a witness for the defendant, testified that he was riding with Fowler at the time of the wreck; that he was driving a black Plymouth; that Fowler did all the driving; that he did not know whether they came from Milledgeville to the scene of the collision by way of Jones County, where the Jones car was hit, or by some other route; that he did not know which side of the road they were on; that the defendant had previously bought whisky and the witness had bought wine; that the witness drank his wine and went to sleep; that he did not know whether the defendant drank the whisky or not. The defendant in his statement denied responsibility for the collision and stated that he had cut over the center line because the oncoming car was on his side of the road.
Upon conviction the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds which was later amended by adding 6 special grounds, and to the judgment of the trial court overruling his motion for a new trial as amended he brings error.
D. D. Veal, R. C. Whitman, Eatonton, for plaintiff in error.
C. S. Baldwin, J., Sol. Gen., Milledgeville, for defendant in error.
TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).
1. Special ground 1 of the amended motion for a new trial complains of the admission of testimony of Mrs. W. R. Dennis as follows: 'From my observation of those facts, in my opinion he was drunk.' In Grier v. State, 72 Ga.App. 633(2), 34 S.E.2d 642, it is held as follows: 'A witness who satisfactorily shows that he had an opportunity to observe and did observe a person's condition may testify, as a statement of fact actually observed by him, whether such person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.' The admission of the evidence complained of in special ground 1 is not error for any reason assigned.
2. Objection is made to the testimony of Watt Jones as to the collision with an automobile which sideswiped his car shortly before the Dennis wreck, and to the testimony of the State's witness that he had picked up a piece of fender from the road where the first impact took place and found that it matched the piece missing from the defendant's fender, and that based on this information a warrant was taken out against the defendant for hit and run driving. The testimony conclusively showed that the defendant had been the only person driving the automobile for the past 7 or 8 hours; that his normal route would have been along the road where the Jones car was hit; that this collision occurred about an hour before the Dennis collision, and that these circumstances established the defendant as the driver of the Plymouth car which sideswiped the Jones car.
It is well established that evidence of the commission of one crime is not admissible upon the trial for another where the sole purpose is to show that the defendant is guilty of the other crime, but, if relevant to the issue on trial, this fact does not itself make such evidence inadmissible. Goodman v. State, 184 Ga. 315, 191 S.E. 117. Where there is some logical connection between the two acts from which it can be said that proof of one tends to establish the other, such evidence is admissible. See Sanders v. State, 54 Ga.App. 238(1), 187 S.E. 608. As stated in Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. 275, 160 S.E. 319, 324, 'In order that a collateral crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meeks v. Lunsford
...463, 180 S.E. 911; Cavender v. State, 46 Ga.App. 782, 169 S.E. 253; Spence v. State, 83 Ga.App. 588, 63 S.E.2d 910; Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197, 60 S.E.2d 473; Code § 38-1708), and in this sense, it is opinion testimony, although not expert opinion testimony. See Green, Ga. Law of Evide......
-
Price v. Whitley Const. Co.
...evidence and has the approval of the trial court. No error of law appearing, it will not be disturbed by this court.' Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197(4), 60 S.E.2d 473, 474.' In Smith v. Merck, 206 Ga. 361, 375, 57 S.E.2d 326, 336, the Supreme Court held: 'We have carefully read and reread ......
-
Hight v. Steely, 33988
...evidence and has the approval of the trial court. No error of law appearing, it will not be disturbed by this court.' Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197(4), 60 S.E.2d 473, 474. Judgment SUTTON, C. J., and FELTON, J., concur. ...
-
Wells v. State, 40923
...another is under the influence of intoxicants is not a mere conclusion. King v. State, 86 Ga.App. 786, 72 S.E.2d 502; Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197, 60 S.E.2d 473; Harris v. State, 97 Ga.App. 495, 103 S.E.2d 443; Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 4. Two police officers, witnesses ......