Greeson v. State, s. 37033
| Decision Date | 27 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | 37034,Nos. 37033,No. 2,s. 37033,2 |
| Parties | Arthur GREESON v. The STATE (two cases) |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence authorized the verdict and since none of the special grounds shows error, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
J. Ray Merritt, Buford, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. C. Pittard, Solicitor, Lawrenceville, for defendant in error.
Arthur Greeson was tried and convicted in the City Court of Gwinnett County on January 24, 1957, on two accusations, one charging him with the offense of having and possessing non-tax-paid whisky, and the other with the offense of selling non-tax-paid whisky. He made a motion for new trial on the general grounds, which he amended by the addition of 12 special grounds. That motion was denied and the exception here is to that judgment.
1. Special grounds 1 and 2 complain of error in the refusal of the trial court to require the State's witness to name a decoy, or informer, who, under the evidence, accompanied the witness when the purchase of whisky was made from the defendant. The record, however, shows that thereafter counsel for the State put one of the witnesses back on the stand and permitted him to name the decoy, and if the refusal of the court to require that the decoy be named, as complained of in special grounds 1 and 2, was error, it was cured by the State's subsequently permitting the witness to name him.
2. Special ground 3 alleges error 'Because, as the movant contends, that after the revenue agent, Gordon, had refused to give the name of his informer or decoy on cross examination, he was put back on the stand by the State and named a man who he stated was the informer or decoy and who aided and abetted Agent, Flowers, in the allegedly purchasing of the liquor.' This ground, after reciting a colloquy between the court and counsel from which it does not appear that any motion was made by counsel for the defendant or that any ruling of the court was invoked, goes on to say that movant contends that he was denied his constitutional rights to cross-examine the witness against him, and this, apparently, is the error assigned. Special ground 5 contends that the court erred in refusing to instruct the State to produce the informer, or decoy, into court after a request by counsel for the defendant as shown by a colloquy set out in this ground.
It does not appear from ground 3 that counsel for the defendant made a motion for a continuance so that he could be afforded the opportunity of subpoenaing and procuring the presence of the witness or even that any motion was made distinctly invoking the court's ruling that the State be required to call the decoy as a witness. No specific ruling of the court is assigned as error in this ground of the motion, and it is therefore wholly insufficient to present any question for decision by this court. Bryan v. Barnett, 205 Ga. 94(4), 52 S.E.2d 613; Salter v. Salter, 80 Ga.App. 263(3), 55 S.E.2d 868.
Cole v. State, 86 Ga.App. 770(3), 72 S.E.2d 537, 538. The foregoing being the rule with respect to witnesses named in the accusation, it must be true, a fortiori, that the State is not required to subpoena and put on the stand a person not listed on the accusation, and it does not abridge the defendant's right of confrontation and cross examination for the court to refuse to require the State to summon one not relied on by the State to make out its case before the jury as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiddon v. State
...surrounding her statement. Compare Porter v. State, 143 Ga.App. 640(2), 239 S.E.2d 694 (1977). See also Greeson v. State, 97 Ga.App. 245(2), 102 S.E.2d 503 (1958). Therefore, enumerations Nos. 1 and 2 are without 2. Appellant's enumerations Nos. 3 through 11 inclusive cite as error several ......
-
Farrar v. Glynn-Brunswick Memorial Hospital Authority
...v. Southern R. Co., 107 Ga. 500(4c), 33 S.E. 644; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brown, 82 Ga.App. 889, 62 S.E.2d 736; Greeson v. State, 97 Ga.App. 245, 102 S.E.2d 503. 'Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, where a portion of an excerpt from the charge [of the court......
-
Bell v. State
...In analogous circumstances the state is not required to call all of those witnesses named in the accusation itself. Greeson v. State, 97 Ga.App. 245, 102 S.E.2d 503; Harper v. State, 131 Ga. 771, 63 S.E. 339; Cole v. State, 86 Ga.App. 770, 72 S.E.2d 537. Because the list was neither demande......
-
Bonds v. State, 29030
...private practitioner in representing his clients, and can call or refuse to call a particular witness as he sees fit.' Greeson v. State, 97 Ga.App. 245(2), 102 S.E.2d 503. It follows that this contention is without Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. ...