Huff v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | 29913. |
| Parties | HUFF v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James R. Venable and Frank A. Bowers, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., Bond Almand, Sol., Durwood T. Pye, and Lindley W. Camp, Sol., all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. In a trial for recklessly driving an automobile the court did not err in allowing a witness, Paschall, to testify over the objection that this was placing the defendant's character in issue, that the testimony was irrelevant in that the defendant was not charged with driving an
automobile while intoxicated, but was charged (a) with driving at an excessive rate of speed, and (b) in a reckless manner. We think the testimony was competent, as bearing on the issue of reckless driving, to prove all the circumstances at the time of the alleged criminal act, including the condition, movements, and the conduct of the defendant. The defendant's condition, together with his movements and conduct at the time of the alleged criminal act, was a circumstance of such a character, which, when taken in connection with other circumstances according to the common course of events, tended to establish the truth of the matter in issue and was relevant. There was other evidence that the car "zigzagged" from one side of the street to the other, and at times went eighty-five miles per hour. The evidence was not subject to the objection that it came within the rule that the State can not attack the defendant's character unless, or until, he first puts it in issue. The exception is not meritorious.
2. Walter C. Huff was charged in an accusation on two counts the first for operating an automobile on a public highway at a rate of speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour in violation of Code, § 68-301, a misdemeanor, and the second for operating an automobile on a public highway "in such a manner as to be in wilful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property," in violation of Code, § 68-9919, a misdemeanor. There was a like accusation charging Guy F. Waller at the same time and place, while riding in the same automobile, with a violation of the same sections. By consent of counsel the two cases were tried at the same time. The judge, in his original charge, instructed the jury as follows: He did not charge the rule of "no accessories" in misdemeanor cases. Thomas v. State, 65 Ga.App. 749, 16 S.E.2d 447. However, after the jury began their deliberations, they returned to the court room and asked the court: "Will you charge us again on the form of our verdict that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gosse
...v. Donahue (1982), 110 Ill.App.3d 1081, 1085, 66 Ill.Dec. 860, 443 N.E.2d 786. The State refers to the case of Huff v. State (1943), 68 Ga.App. 799, 24 S.E.2d 227, 228. There the court held that evidence that defendant had been drinking without evidence that he was intoxicated is admissible......
-
State v. Clayton
...N.C. 771, 111 S.E. 523; accord, State v. Sisneros, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274; State v. Birch, 183 Wash. 670, 49 P.2d 921; Huff v. State, 68 Ga.App. 799, 24 S.E.2d 227; Allen v. State, 273 P.2d 152 (Okl.Cr.). See also State v. McMahan, 228 N.C. 293, 45 S.E.2d 340; State v. Howard, 272 N.C. 51......
-
State v. Sandoval
...for the jury to consider on the issue of reckless driving. See State v. Loyland, 149 N.W.2d 713 (N.D.1967); Huff v. State, 68 Ga.App. 799, 24 S.E.2d 227 (1943). Of course, evidence that a defendant took one drink of beer and then was in an accident would be insufficient to support a convict......
- Huff v. State, 29913.