Hayes v. State, (No. 17963.)

• Decision Date: 12 April 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 17963.)
• Citation: 36 Ga.App. 668,137 S.E. 860
• Parties: HAYES. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

36 Ga.App. 668

137 S.E. 860

HAYES.

v.STATE.

(No. 17963.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 12, 1927.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Ben Hill County; D. A. R. Crum, Judge.

Ed Hayes was convicted of an offense, and he brings error. Affirmed.

C. W. Bussell, and D. E. Griffin, both of Fitzgerald, for plaintiff in error.

T. Hoyt Davis, Sol. Gen., of Vienna, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BLOODWORTH, J. [1] 1 (a) "In misdemeanor cases, it is the constant practice to submit to the jury evidence of several misdemeanors of the same character, perpetrated by the same person." Bryant v. State, 97 Ga. 105, 25 S. E. 450.

(b) "In a prosecution for possessing intoxicating liquor it is not error to admit evidence that on other occasions, both before and after the date of the offense charged in the accusation, such liquor was found in the possession of the accused. See Jones v. State, 32 Ga. App. 7, 122 S. E. 738, and citations. This is true, even though the evidence shows that liquor was found in the possession of the defendant on the day of the trial." (Italics ours.) Martin v. State, 35 Ga. App. 576 (2b), 134 S. E. 185. See, also, Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (1), 127 S. E. 156.

(c) "On the trial of one charged with illegally selling whisky, it is not error to admit evidence to show that the house of the accused was searched by officers subsequently to the day on which the alleged sale was made, and that bottles of whisky were found therein." Cole v. State, 120 Ga. 485 (1), 48 S. E. 156.

(d) "Where knowledge, motive, intent, good or bad faith, and other matters dependent upon a person's state of mind, are involved as a material element in a particular criminal offense for which a defendant is on trial, and the defendant has engaged in a course of conduct or done other acts at or about the same time the act in question was committed, and these other transactions are such as to illustrate the state of the defendant's mind on the subject involved, proof of them may be received." Lee v. State, 8 Ga. App. 413 (3), 69 S. E. 310.

(e) "An objection to evidence that it is 'immaterial, inadmissible, and prejudicial' is too general to present anything for consideration by this court. See, in this connection, Gordon v. Gilmore, 141 Ga. 347 (2a). 80 S. E. 1007; Richardson v. State, 141 Ga. 782 (2), 82 S. E. 134; Cowart v. State, 30 Ga. App. 289, 117 S. E. 663; McDonald v. State, 21 Ga. App. 125 (6), 94 S. E. 262." Martin v. State, 35 Ga. App. 576 (2a), 134 S. E. 185.

(f) "There was no evidence that required an instruction on the law of alibi, in the absence of a request." Gibson v. State, 20 Ga. App. 73 (4), 93 S. E. 48. See, also Shaw v. State, 10 Ga. App. 776 (2), 74 S. E. 89; Moore v. State, 17 Ga. App. 344 (2), 86 S. E. 822.

(g) "Under repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, each special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and when so incomplete as to require a reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, in order to determine what was the alleged error and whether such error was material, the ground will not be considered by the reviewing court." McCall v. State, 23 Ga. App. 770, 99 S. E. 471.

When all the evidence and the entire charge of the court are considered in the light of the foregoing well-established principles, there is nothing in special grounds 1 to 6, inclusive, of the ...