Johnson v. State, 33778
| Decision Date | 18 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33778,No. 2,33778,2 |
| Citation | 84 Ga.App. 745,67 S.E.2d 246 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where character has been put in issue, it is not permissible in rebuttal to prove specific acts of bad character, except on cross-examination for the purpose of testing the witness' knowledge or to impeach the defendant's statement. Nevertheless, the admission of evidence here that the police officer had received reports concerning liquor violations by the defendant in rebuttal of evidence that he had never been previously arrested for liquor, the defendant conceding that he had placed his character in issue as to liquor violations, was not such error as to require reversal.
2. Where the conviction does not depend upon circumstantial evidence alone it is not error, in the absence of request, to fail to charge this principle of law.
3. The charge that a man cannot be guilty of transporting whisky unless he possesses it was correct and did not express an opinion that the defendant did in fact possess liquor.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment of the court overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed by this court.
The defendant Joe Allen Johnson was indicted, tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Clarke County of possessing and transporting illegal liquor. Upon the trial of the case two police officers, witnesses for the State, testified that in response to information that a car carrying illegal liquor and driven by the defendant would be in a certain locality, they set out to locate it; that they saw a Mercury driven at a rapid rate of speed and turned to check it; that the car broke out of line and reached a speed of over 90 or 100 miles per hour travelling toward town; that the officers turned on the siren and spot lights, centering the latter upon the driver's side; that after a lengthy chase the car veered to the left; that door on the driver's side came open, and the driver stood for a moment on the running board looking back at his pursuers before jumping; that the spotlight was on him and the witness recognized him as the defendant; that he had known the defendant for over a month and had stopped him and checked his license the night before, at which time he was driving the same automobile; that another unidentified man jumped from the right side of the car and got away; that the defendant also got away, but the officers searched the car and found in it 11 cases of nontax-paid whisky. The police officers made an effort to locate the defendant the next day but failed to do so. He was arrested four days later, when he came in to inquire about the automobile, it being in police custody.
Two witnesses for the defendant testified that the latter had left the automobile in question at their garage to have some work done on a date which, so far as they could fix it, was February 19, the day before the automobile was apprehended; that the defendant left the premises before the mechanic about closing time; that the next morning the automobile was missing and the defendant came out and demanded to know what had been done with the car; that the garageman did not report the disappearance of the car to the police. The defendant made a statement to the jury in which he denied having been in the automobile the night it was seized, but stated that he had left it at the garage for repairs and when he returned for it the next day it was missing; that he was unable to find a policeman to report the theft; that he intended to report it to the State Patrol, but received word that it was at the court house and, on going down there to investigate, was placed under arrest.
The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds which was later amended by the addition of two special grounds, and the exception is to the judgment of the trial court overruling this motion.
Edwin Fortson, Jas. W. Arnold, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Sol. Gen., Monroe, for defendant in error.
TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).
1. The first ground of the amended motion for a new trial complains that the court, over objection to the question on redirect examination as follows: 'Mr. Arnold asked you the question of whether or not you ever arrested this boy for liquor, I will ask you if you have had some reports on him?' permitted the State's witness to reply: On cross examination counsel for the defendant had asked the witness whether he had ever arrested the defendant for handling liquor, to which the witness replied in the negative. At the time that counsel objected to the question as to whether the police officer had received reports on the defendant being engaged in the liquor business, the court said, 'Haven't you put his character in evidence?' to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambley v. State
...reversible error since substantially the same statement was introduced into evidence by the defendant. See Johnson v. State, 84 Ga.App. 745, 748(1), 67 S.E.2d 246; Harris v. Stynchcombe, 227 Ga. 763(1), 183 S.E.2d 205; Glass v. Lowery, 168 Ga.App. 153(2), 308 S.E.2d 616. Finally, we have th......
- Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Phillips, 33737