Nesbit v. State
| Citation | 125 Ga. 51,54 S.E. 195 |
| Parties | NESBIT. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 23 March 1906 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Criminal Law—Evidence of Other Crimes.
Evidence which tends to show that the accused has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial is irrelevant, and upon proper objection to such evidence, urged at the time it is offered, it should be excluded.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 823, 824.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.
Sam Nesbit was convicted of assault with intent of kill, and brings error. Reversed.
A. L. Franklin, for plaintiff in error.
J. S. Reynolds, Sol. Gen., for the State.
After having been convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, Nesbit made a motion for a new trial, upon several grounds, which was overruled by the court. Exception is taken to the refusal to grant this motion, but in his brief filed in this court counsel for the plaintiff in error urges only that ground which complains of the admission of testimony relating to an attempted assault upon the prosecutor, subsequent to the assault for which the defendant was indicted; hence the other grounds of the motion will be treated as abandoned.
The testimony complained of in the sole ground of the motion relied upon by counsel is, in substance, as follows: The accused, on the morning after the assault for which he was tried, accosted the prosecutor and demanded of him, "What you been tending to my business for?" The prosecutor denied interfering with the business of the defendant, whereupon the latter advanced upon the prosecutor and drew a knife, opening it with his teeth. The prosecutor retreated, and, while running, picked up a rock which he threw at the accused, who was pursuing him. After chasing the prosecutor for about 75 yards, having threatened to "cut his guts out" if he caught him, the accused gave up the chase, and the prosecutor shouted back, while still fleeing, "Never mind, I will have you arrested."
This testimony was clearly irrelevant; but while it was not relevant to the charge upon which the defendant was convicted, it must necessarily have tended to create in the minds of the jury the impression that the accused was of violent temper, an aggressive nature, and eager to inflict a personal injury upon the prosecutor; and yet it has no such connection with the alleged assault which was the basis of the charge against the accused as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank v. State
... ... which had several times in the near past been exhibited at ... that place, and under like circumstances of watching and ... signaling, and from the effort to act upon which, at the same ... place, on this occasion, and resistance thereto, the murder ... may have resulted. In Nesbit v. State, 125 Ga. 51, ... 54 S.E. 195, on the trial of one indicted for assault with ... intent to murder, evidence was admitted that the accused, on ... the morning after the assault for which he was tried, ... accosted the prosecutor and demanded of him, "What you ... been tending to my ... ...
- Frank v. State
-
Bowman v. State
...act alleged as seduction. Counsel for the defendant cites in support of this contention the following cases: Code, § 38-202; Nesbit v. State, 125 Ga. 51, 54 S.E. 195; Chambers v. State, 76 Ga.App. 269, 270, 45 S.E.2d 724; Wright v. State, 76 Ga.App. 483, 484(3), 488, 46 S.E.2d 516. These au......
-
Wright v. State
...See Chambers v. State, Ga.App., 45 S.E.2d 724, No. 31805, decided Dec. 5, 1947; Lee v. State, 8 Ga.App. 413(1), 69 S.E. 310; Nesbit v. State, 125 Ga. 51, 54 S.E. 195. The exceptions to this general rule are where proof of other crimes is admitted for the purpose of showing knowledge, or whe......