Mathis v. State, 18446
| Decision Date | 08 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18446,18446 |
| Citation | 210 Ga. 408,80 S.E.2d 159 |
| Parties | MATHIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
George Thomas, Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.
Bent. Willoughby, Sol. Gen., Homerville, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, Wright & English, Adel, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The only evidence relied on here to lay the foundation for testimony that the deceased was a person of violent, turbulent, and dangerous character was the testimony of the defendant's father and brother that the State's witness had said to them that the deceased had his hand in his pocket and that he was pulling something out of his right-hand pocket. The sworn testimony of the State's witness was to the contrary, and the evidence above was, at the most, merely impeaching evidence and is not itself probative evidence which will tend to prove any fact therein contained. Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. Archer, 73 Ga.App. 639, 37 S.E.2d 713; Henry v. Hoch, 76 Ga.App. 819, 823, 47 S.E.2d 159; Loomis v. State, 78 Ga.App. 336, 51 S.E.2d 33. There is no evidence here showing the accused to have been attacked by the deceased, and until this is shown proof of the bad character of the deceased cannot be made, and the court did not err in excluding this testimony. See Smithwick v. State, 199 Ga. 292, 34 S.E.2d 28; Beam v. State, 208 Ga. 497(2), 67 S.E.2d 573.
2. The testimony of a witness for the accused that he had been threatened and intimidated by the son of the deceased was not in any respect material or relevant to the issues, particularly since it occurred between the time of the crime and the trial, and the court did not err in excluding it.
3. The evidence here, showing that the accused shot the deceased in the manner alleged in the indictment causing his death, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and for this reason and the reasons stated above none of the general or special grounds is meritorious, and the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial as amended.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. State, 32802
...811 (1965), such evidence would have been admissible only for the purpose of further impeachment of the witnesses (Mathis v. State, 210 Ga. 408, 80 S.E.2d 159 (1954); Code § A defendant assigning error upon the denial of a "Brady motion" must do more than show suppression. Moore v. Illinois......
-
Burnett v. State, 32684
...before the court and the judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding testimony in regard to such an occurrence. Mathis v. State, 210 Ga. 408(2), 80 S.E.2d 159 (1954). Nor did the judge err in excluding testimony alleging that co-defendant Looney had inflicted a bruise upon appellant's f......
-
Andrews v. State
...which will tend to prove any fact therein contained." Loomis v. State, 78 Ga.App. 336, 357(7), 51 S.E.2d 33 (1948); Mathis v. State, 210 Ga. 408(1), 80 S.E.2d 159 (1954); Lewis v. American Road Ins. Co., 119 Ga.App. 507, 509(1), 167 S.E.2d 729 (1969); Dickey v. State, 240 Ga. 634, 636, 242 ......
-
Rager v. Maxon Shirt Co.
... ... , or to doubtful cases, and courts cannot enlarge the remedy, under the statute of this State, summons of garnishment can issue 'In cases where suit shall be pending'. Code (Ann.Supp) § ... ...