King v. State, 40496

• Decision Date: 28 January 1964
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 40496,40496,2
• Citation: 109 Ga.App. 36,134 S.E.2d 826
• Parties: Lewis KING v. The STATE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 826

134 S.E.2d 826

109 Ga.App. 36

Lewis KING v. The STATE.

No. 40496.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Jan. 28, 1964.

Charles T. Culbert and Vaughn Terrell, Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Chastine Parker, Solicitor, Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

RUSSELL, Judge.

1. Testimony of revenue agents in a pursuing automobile following as closely as six feet behind a fleeing car operated by the defendant to the effect that another occupant of the vehicle threw a case of half-gallon fruit jars from the car to the side of the road at an identified location and that after apprehending the vehicle and giving chase to the occupants the witnesses returned and found at that location a case with two unbroken half gallon jars of moonshine liquor plus other broken jars is direct evidence of the facts testified to and circumstantial evidence as to the ultimate fact to be found, whether the defendant was in possession of and transporting nontax-paid liquor. Cf. Jones v. State, 91 Ga.App. 662, 86 S.E.2d 724. The testimony being authorized by the facts stated, was not objectionable as a mere conclusion. Harris v. State, 69 Ga.App. 872(1), 27 S.E.2d 51. Since from the facts an inference is authorized that the case and fruit jars hurled from the car were in fact the same as those recovered, special grounds 1 and 5 of the amended motion for a new trial are without merit.

2. The witness for the State testified on cross examination in answer to a question not appearing in the record: 'As to whether I knew at the time he was throwing it out the window it was [whiskey], I had a good idea what it was,' the ground of objection being, 'I asked him did he know and I object to him answering the question in that manner.' Again, in answer to an unstated question, the witness said: 'The reason we didn't stop and pick up the evidence at the time it was thrown out, we wanted to catch him. He's hard to pick up sometimes,' the ground of objection being: 'That's not responsive to the question, and I ask that it be stricken.' Hooks v. State, 101 Ga.App. 351, 114 S.E.2d 48 reiterates: '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...