Hall v. Hall, S91A0505
Decision Date | 11 April 1991 |
Docket Number | No. S91A0505,S91A0505 |
Citation | 261 Ga. 188,402 S.E.2d 726 |
Parties | HALL v. HALL. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
M. Theodore Solomon, II, Solomon & Edgar, P.C., Alma, for Georgia Hall.
William K. Blackstone, Hazlehurst, for Byrom Hilton Hall, Jr.
We granted the application for discretionary appeal in this divorce case to decide whether a conviction for driving under the influence (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)) may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. At trial, the court allowed evidence of the wife's DUI convictions to impeach her testimony, and, over the wife's objection, instructed the jury that a witness may be impeached by The trial court rejected the wife's request to instruct the jury that a conviction of DUI is not a crime involving moral turpitude. In so doing, the court stated that it was for the jury to decide whether a misdemeanor DUI conviction would impeach the wife's testimony.
Rules vary as to what type of criminal convictions may be used to impeach a witness. 1 In Georgia, the rule is that a witness may be impeached by proof of a conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude. See Agnor's Georgia Evidence (2d Ed.), § 5-8 (1986); Lewis v. State, 243 Ga. 443, 444, 254 S.E.2d 830 (1979) ( ); Watts v. Gaines, 226 Ga. 503, 505(2), 175 S.E.2d 871 (1970). The question, then, is whether DUI is a crime of moral turpitude.
We have noted that "moral turpitude" has been "said to be restricted to the gravest offenses, consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved mind." Lewis v. State, supra, 243 Ga. at 444, 254 S.E.2d 830. We have also noted that the term seems equivalent in this state to infamy, and would encompass all felonies. Id. at 445, 254 S.E.2d 830. It can be seen, by contrast, that a misdemeanor conviction for DUI is not a crime of moral turpitude. 2 See Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. West, 155 Ga.App. 391, 392(3), 271 S.E.2d 36 (1980) ( ).
Thus, testimony concerning the wife's DUI convictions was not admissible for the purpose of general impeachment and that error was compounded by the court's refusal to instruct the jury accordingly.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
1 Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 609(a) allows...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Syfrett v. State, A93A1568
...a depraved mind. (Cit.)" (Cits.)' Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. West, 155 Ga.App. 391, 393, 271 S.E.2d 36 (1980). Accord Hall v. Hall, 261 Ga. 188, 402 S.E.2d 726 (1991) (holding that DUI is not such an offense).... [Also,] this court has previously held that such offenses as simple battery......
-
State v. Hall
...the issue, at least with regard to a first offense, that driving under the influence is not a crime of moral turpitude. Hall v. Hall, 261 Ga. 188, 402 S.E.2d 726 (1991); In re Carr, 46 Cal.3d 1089, 252 Cal.Rptr. 24, 761 P.2d 1011 (1988); Brown v. State, 76 Md.App. 630, 547 A.2d 1099 (1988),......
-
Tolbert v. State
...evidence of their prior felony convictions, see Ely v. State, 272 Ga. 418, 420(4), 529 S.E.2d 886 (2000), citing Hall v. Hall, 261 Ga. 188, 402 S.E.2d 726 (1991), and it was for the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and questions of witness credibility. Sims v. State, 278 Ga. 587, 5......
-
Thornton v. State
...16-11-131. 3. Hawes v. State, 266 Ga. 731, 733-734(3), 470 S.E.2d 664 (1996) (punctuation and footnote omitted). 4. Hall v. Hall, 261 Ga. 188, 402 S.E.2d 726 (1991) (citations 5. See generally Barron v. State, 261 Ga. 814, 816(4), 411 S.E.2d 494 (1992); Jenkins v. State, 260 Ga. 231, 232(2)......