Haralson v. State, 29877
| Decision Date | 13 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29877,29877 |
| Parties | Jerry Leonard HARALSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jack Dorsey, Atlanta, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Julius C. Daugherty, Jr., Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was indicted in two separate multi-court indictments charging armed robbery. The first indictment contained six counts and the second three counts. He was convicted on the first two counts of the first indictment and on all three counts of the second indictment, and sentenced to ten years on each count, the sentences on each indictment running concurrently with the sentences on the second indictment to follow the sentences on the first. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.
1. The first enumeration of error contends the court erred in permitting the state to ask a leading question of one of its witnesses. 'The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit a party calling a witness to propound leading questions.' Butler v. State, 178 Ga. 700, 703, 173 S.E. 856, 858. See also Code § 38-1706. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.
2. The second enumeration of error contends the appellant was denied a thorough and sifting cross-examination of the state's witnesses, in violation of Code § 38- 1705. All of the questions to which objections were sustained were either argumentative, a misstatement of the witnesses' testimony or matters not within the witnesses' knowledge and were properly excluded. See Harris v. Central Railroad, 78 Ga. 525, 534, 3 S.E. 355; Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 553, 556, 170 S.E.2d 281.
3. Error is enumerated upon the admission of alleged hearsay testimony relating to two of the armed robberies. In one instance a clerk in the store told a customer who arrived on the scene as the robbers were leaving, of the armed robbery, and the customer replied 'They drove off in a Pontiac, kind of beige color.' In the other instance complained of, the testimony of the owner of the store where the robbery occurred was admitted over objection. The owner testified that he arrived at the scene immediately after the robbery, asked a clerk what had happened and the clerk responded 'We was robbed.' The clerk also testified on direct examination the substantially same facts.
In Southern Railroad Co. v. Brown, 126 Ga. 1, 4, 54 S.E. 911, 912, it was held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...272, fn. 3(V), 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). This Court has recognized the rule at least since the frequently cited case of Haralson v. State, supra, and we have no reasonable grounds for rejecting it Admissibility of the prior identifications has long-standing case law support, of......
-
Anderson v. State
...This testimony was admissible as part of the res gestae. Hill v. State, 17 Ga.App. 294(1), 86 S.E. 657 (1915); Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407(3), 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 68, 69(2), 223 S.E.2d 17 (1975). There was no 2. Appellants urge that error occurred wh......
-
Gibson v. State
...who conducted a lineup identification as to the identity of persons picked out of such a lineup is admissible. Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408(4), 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). The matter of when and how to raise objections is generally a matter of trial strategy. Milliken v. State, 230 Ga.App......
-
Rowe v. State
...What is more, a trial court is to preclude questions on matters that are not within the witness's knowledge. Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407(2), 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). It is plain that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the questions at issue. Any inquiry about ......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...233, 254-55 (1994). 314. 211 Ga. App. 829, 830, 440 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1994). 315. 208 Ga. App. 700, 701, 431 S.E.2d 398, 400 (1993). 316. 234 Ga. 406, 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). 317. Id. at 408, 216 S.E.2d at 305. 318. 208 Ga. App. at 701, 216 S.E.2d at 400. 319. 211 Ga. App. at 830, 440 S.E.2d ......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...at 718; 208 Ga. App. at 700, 431 S.E.2d at 399. 239. 211 Ga, App. at 830, 440 S.E.2d at 719; 208 Ga. App. at 700, 431 S.E.2d at 399. 240. 234 Ga. 406, 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). 241. Id. at 408, 216 S.E.2d at 304. 242. 208 Ga. App. at 701, 431 S.E.2d at 400. 243. 211 Ga. App. at 830, 440 S.E.2d......
-
Criminal Law - Frank C. Mills, Iii
...208 Ga. App. 700, 431 S.E.2d 398 (1993). 457. 211 Ga. App. at 830, 440 S.E.2d at 719. 458. 175 Ga. App. 449, 333 S.E.2d 645 (1985). 459. 234 Ga. 406, 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). 460. 211 Ga. App. at 830, 440 S.E.2d at 719. It is likely that the supreme court will soon take them up on their invit......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...Ga. 34, 537 S.E.2d 659 (2000). 69. . Id. at 35, 537 S.E.2d at 660. 70. . Id. 71. . Id. 72. . Treadwell, supra note 12, at 298-99. 73. . 234 Ga. 406, 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975). 74. . Id. at 406, 216 S.E.2d at 304. 75. . Neal v. State, 211 Ga. App. 829, 830, 440 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1994). 76. . 244 ......