Haygood v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59684,59684 |
| Citation | 269 S.E.2d 480,154 Ga.App. 633 |
| Parties | HAYGOOD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Melvin England, Atlanta, for appellant.
M. Randall Peek, Dist. Atty., Michael M. Sheffield, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The defendant was tried and convicted of an aggravated assault upon his wife, who had been beaten senseless, suffered an episode of amnesia, and was unable to testify to anything that happened from before she left work on the day in question until after she had been taken to the hospital at about 4 a. m. of the following morning. The assault took place on December 10, 1978. The defendant appeals from the overruling of his motion for new trial.
1. The court allowed the victim to testify over objection that she and the defendant were married in September, 1976; that he assaulted her in a jealous fit in November, 1976, broke her nose, and she had to drive herself to the hospital; that the attacks frequently happened when the defendant was drunk; that in July, 1978, he attacked her during a pregnancy, that her arm was cut and she again had to drive herself to the hospital; that after an attack in April, 1978, she left him, but returned. She also detailed other assaults during the two years of her marriage, including threats that he was going to come to her place of business and kill her.
Evidence of other criminal transactions is relevant and admissible where they represent a prior "course of conduct pointing toward and leading to the crime or to the concealment of the crime or to the identity of the perpetrator." Spurlin v. State, 228 Ga. 2, 5, 183 S.E.2d 765 (1971). In the same way, evidence of other crimes is admissible where it shows prior attempts by the accused to commit the same crime upon the victim of the offense for which he stands charged, as tending to prove malice, intent or motive. Natson v. State, 242 Ga. 618, 620, 250 S.E.2d 420 (1978); Lindsey v. State, 135 Ga.App. 122(2), 218 S.E.2d 30 (1975); Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62, 70, 190 S.E. 663 (1937). Hamilton v. State, 239 Ga. 72, 75, 235 S.E.2d 515 (1977). Certain otherwise inexplicable assaults, such as occur in a series of incidents of wife or child abuse, particularly lend themselves to this exception to the "other offenses" rule on the questions of both identity and motive. See Morris v. State, 143 Ga.App. 713, 240 S.E.2d 99 (1977); Wells v. State, 135 Ga.App. 421, 422, 218 S.E.2d 131 (1975). This testimony was admissible, nor, since it dealt with illegal conduct, did the court commit error in referring to the prior assaults as "other crimes" in his instructions to the jury.
2. The chief county medical examiner, who had on prior occasions been called upon to determine the cause of injury to living victims, testified that he had examined the pattern of injuries, that this was not consistent with any type of accident that he could think of; that the blows appeared to have been inflicted at approximately the same time, judging from appearance, color, and degree of tissue reaction; that he had examined a ring (established as having been worn on the defendant's left hand) and compared it with one of the injury patterns on the left side of the jaw of the victim, and the measurement, size and shape of the injury was "consistent with having been caused by an object such as this ring." After describing the ring in detail he said specifically, Additionally, a photograph of the defendant's wife as it appeared in the bruised condition was introduced in evidence, and the witness discussed the bruises and cuts shown in relation to the bony structure of the face. The objection that no foundation had been laid to allow the witness to conclude that certain marks on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...27. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Herring v. State, 224 Ga.App. 809, 814(4), 481 S.E.2d 842 (1997); Haygood v. State, 154 Ga.App. 633(1), 269 S.E.2d 480 (1980). 28. Supra, 222 Ga.App. at 510(4), 474 S.E.2d 29. See Farley, supra, 265 Ga. at 624(2), 458 S.E.2d 643 ("Under numerous deci......
-
Moody v. State
...357, 359(1), 615 S.E.2d 196 (2005). 10. See Zilinmon v. State, 234 Ga. 535, 538(8), 216 S.E.2d 830 (1975); Haygood v. State, 154 Ga.App. 633, 635(4), 269 S.E.2d 480 (1980). Moody's reliance on Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54, 464 S.E.2d 198 (1995), is misplaced. The Smith decision addresses t......
-
Wright v. State
...§ 16-5-21, the aggravated assault statute. See Wright v. State, 211 Ga.App. 474, 475(1), 440 S.E.2d 27 (1993); Haygood v. State, 154 Ga.App. 633, 635(4), 269 S.E.2d 480 (1980); Kirby v. State, 145 Ga.App. 813, 815(4), 245 S.E.2d 43 (1978). However, the language of the aggravated assault sta......
-
Griggs v. State, 66251
... ... See also Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649, 652(3), 250 S.E.2d 394. Evidence of other criminal transactions is relevant and admissible where they represent a prior course of conduct pointing towards and [167 Ga.App. 584] leading to the crime with which defendant is charged. Haygood v. State, 154 Ga.App. 633(1), 269 S.E.2d 480. In the case sub judice, it is a necessary prerequisite to defendant becoming under the influence of marijuana that he first obtain possession of some marijuana. State's Exhibit 1 being evidence that defendant had accomplished this necessary ... ...