Hayes v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 70386,70386 |
| Parties | HAYES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Elaine Maret Gordon, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Susan Brooks, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
John Dudley Hayes was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to ten years with seven to serve and three on probation. He brings this appeal enumerating three asserted errors.
A statement of the case from which the alleged enumerations occurred will help to place those enumerations in proper perspective. The facts show that Hayes and his paramour lived together in a home with the woman's two children. Shortly after they began their liaison, a disagreement arose between Hayes and his lover, Riddle. As the dispute grew heated, Hayes struck Riddle in the face with a beer bottle breaking the bottle as well as several of her teeth, and causing her to lose several of her teeth. She had him arrested but no disposition of those charges ever occurred.
Shortly thereafter, when they had again began cohabitation, Hayes discovered Riddle in bed with another man. On this occasion, Hayes choked Riddle until she temporarily lost consciousness. She again had him arrested for terroristic threats in that he threatened to kill her. Once again, these charges were not pursued. On the occasion of the present assault, Hayes, Riddle and Riddle's daughter were all working at the same place. They were paid and pooled their money to make a down payment on a used car. Hayes left Riddle at home asleep and went out alone. He spent a large amount of the money on alcoholic drinks. When Riddle found out about his profligacy, she began to cry. He apparently, in vengeful anger, pinned her on the bed and beat her unmercifully about the head with his clinched fists. When Riddle managed to make her escape because Hayes became nauseated, she was bleeding from her nose and ears. She suffered a cracked cheekbone and needed two weeks to recover from the damage to her face, hands, and arms.
After Riddle had testified to the beating and its background, she left the courtroom and apparently spoke to some of the assembled state's witnesses. Upon objection by Hayes as to a violation of the rule of sequestration the trial court conducted a hearing as to the extent of her activities and any prejudice that might have occurred. Ms. Riddle stated she told her daughter that she (the daughter) did not have to disclose the daughter's present address; that she found the activity as a witness "scary"; that she thought she would be on the stand only a few minutes and had testified for more than an hour; and that there was some question as to whether Hayes had been drunk on the first incident (not an incident under charge) when Riddle had been struck by a beer bottle. The trial court was satisfied that the violation was not intentional and that no witness' testimony had been suggested or compromised. As a result the trial court refused to disqualify any witness, would not charge the jury as to the effect of the violation on credibility by the compromise and denied a motion for mistrial. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, Hayes complains the trial court erroneously denied a motion in limine and thereafter erred in allowing evidence of the two earlier incidents of beating administered by Hayes to Ms. Riddle. We find no merit in this enumeration. Hayes defended by arguing that he had been drunk and had no recollection of ever assaulting Ms. Riddle, if he in fact did. He argued he loved her, wanted to marry her, and never would intend grievously to harm her.
Evidence of prior offenses of a similar nature may be admitted in criminal prosecutions for the purpose of manifesting a common motive, bent of mind, or course of conduct. Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 635(1), 217 S.E.2d 152; Rivers v. State, 147 Ga.App. 19(1), 248 S.E.2d 31. Because Hayes raised the issue of his motive or state of mind, the relevance of the evidence to the issues of the trial far outweighed its prejudicial impact and thus properly was admitted by the trial court. Garrett v. State, 147 Ga.App. 666, 671...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...even if the Rule had been violated, the remedy for such violation is not exclusion of the witness. See OCGA § 24-9-61; Hayes v. State, 175 Ga.App. 135, 332 S.E.2d 917. Additionally, in view of the witness's testimony that her identification of Cook was based upon her close observation of hi......
-
State v. Marshall, s. A90A0043
...the deputy's testimony subsequent to the chemist's testimony was not impacted by her presence in the courtroom. See Hayes v. State, 175 Ga.App. 135, 332 S.E.2d 917 (1985). It also appears from the trial transcript that appellant waived any objection he had on this 4. Appellant finally asser......
-
Anderson v. State
...motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct, outweighs its prejudicial impact, it is properly admitted. Hayes v. State, 175 Ga.App. 135, 137, 332 S.E.2d 917; McCarty v. State, 165 Ga.App. 241, 243, 299 S.E.2d 95. However, before it is admissible, two conditions must be satisfie......
-
Cooley v. State
...motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct, outweighs its prejudicial impact, it is properly admitted. Hayes v. State, 175 Ga.App. 135, 137 (332 SE2d 917); McCarty v. State, 165 Ga.App. 241, 243 (299 SE2d 95). However, before it is admissible, two conditions must be satisfied.......