Hooks v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38053,No. 2,38053,2 |
| Citation | 114 S.E.2d 48,101 Ga.App. 351 |
| Parties | Warren HOOKS v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Casey Thigpen, Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas A. Hutcheson, Sol., Sandersville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Warren Hooks, the defendant, was convicted of driving an automobile while under the influence of whiskey. The motion for new trial was denied. Counsel for the defendant, upon appeal, has abandoned the general grounds and relies only on one special ground which assigns error because it is alleged that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a mistrial, based on the allegation that a witness for the State put the character of the defendant in issue. The record shows that when the colloquy in question occurred the witness was on cross examination. Counsel for the defendant contends that the witness should have answered the question by a simple 'yes' or 'no,' and 'should not have gone into the fact that the defendant had been on the chain gang and had been paroled.'
A verdict is never demanded in a criminal case in favor of the State where the defendant in a statement to the jury denies his guilt. The evidence does amply support the verdict. But the question must be met and decided whether, when the witness volunteered that the defendant was out on parole, and counsel for the defendant moved for a mistrial, the court's statement, 'I will exclude it but I don't think it is sufficient grounds for mistrial' was error requiring reversal. The case should not be put on the ground that the ruling was error which was harmless because the evidence demanded a verdict of guilty.
In Felton v. State, 93 Ga.App. 48, 90 S.E.2d 607, it was pointed out that peace officers who are witnesses for the State, and who have special training in the field of criminal procedure, have every opportunity to know the basic rules of criminal evidence, including the one that the jury is not to be prejudiced by the injection of the defendant's character in issue when he has not placed it in issue, and that 'voluntary' remarks by such witnesses with a view to placing before the jury that which, if done by a question or remark on the part of the solicitor, would be error, will not be condoned. While motions for mistrial are addressed largely to the discretion of the trial judge, and he may obviate the necessity for mistrial by proper instructions, the court here said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. State
...never demanded in a criminal case in favor of the State where the Defendant, in his testimony, denies his guilt[, citing Hooks v. State, 101 Ga.App. 351 (114 SE2d 48) " 'The failure to give requested instructions in the exact language requested, where the charge given substantially covers t......
-
Wisdom v. State
...questions for cross-examination. Specifically, it is argued that appellant's character was put in issue, and that under Hooks v. State, 101 Ga.App. 351, 114 S.E.2d 48 prejudicial error necessarily occurred when appellant was referred to as a 'safecracker.' We find no merit in this contentio......
-
Willingham v. State
...where the State's witness volunteered on cross examination that defendant had been on the chaingang and had been paroled. Hooks v. State, 101 Ga.App. 351, 114 S.E.2d 48. On the other hand, where a motion for mistrial is made on the ground of inadmissible evidence illegally placed before the......
-
Sanford v. State
...character of the accused before he puts his character in issue, a mistrial must be granted on motion by the defendant. Hooks v. State, 101 Ga.App. 351, 114 S.E.2d 48; 11 Encyc.Ga.L. § 31, p. 287. Recognition of the possible prejudice which is created by mention of other offenses is such tha......