Palmer v. State
| Decision Date | 15 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 31672.,31672. |
| Citation | 44 S.E.2d 567 |
| Parties | PALMER . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under the facts in the instant case an indictment charging the defendant with possessing prohibited liquor in 1941, to which the defendant then pleaded guilty was so remote and unconnected with the crime charged in the present indictment, which charged the defendant with possessing prohibited liquor in 1946, that it was a mere isolated fact and did not become such a matter of substance with the charge on trial as would reveal knowledge, plan, or system. It was error to admit evidence establishing the fact or first transaction.
2. As against the defendant, the charge complained of in special ground one was not error.
3. As the case is being reversed, it is not necessary to pass on the question whether the verdict was authorized by the evidence.
Error from Superior Court, Walton County; Henry H. West, Judge.
Albert Palmer was convicted possessing alcoholic liquors, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed.
Orrin Roberts, of Monroe, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Sol. Gen., of Monroe, for defendant in error.
1. Albert Palmer was indicted for the offense of having, controlling, and possessing alcoholic, distilled, and spiritous liquors on June 30, 1946. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant filed a motion for new trial based on the general and two special grounds. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
In special ground two of his motion for new trial, the defendant contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence an indictment charging the defendant with having, controlling, and possessing prohibited liquor to which the defendant had entered a plea of guilty in 1941. The present charge was alleged to have been committed in 1946.
Under the facts of this case, in order to rebut a defense based upon evidence, which was open to the defendant, the State could introduce other transactions of a similar character which would tend to show the true nature of the transaction in question and support the State's claim that the defendant knowingly had, possessed, and controlled the intoxicating liquor on the occasion charged in the indictment. If the evidence is relevant to the issue on trial, and shows some logical connection, and reveals knowledge, design, or plan, it is not excluded because the act or transaction sought to be introduced in evidence happens to be punishable under our law as a crime. The true question is, not whether the other transactions were denominated crimes, but whether the evidence is relevant to the issue on trial. Barnes v. State, 57 Ga.App. 183, 194 S.E. 839, and cit.
" * * * The relevancy of the proof of these other transactions does not arise from the fact that they were criminal, but from the fact of their having happened." Lee v. State, 8 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...circumstance the defendant previously possessed whisky. The decision herein is controlled by the decision of this Court in Palmer v. State, 75 Ga.App.--, 44 S.E.2d 567 decided October 15, 1947, and reference is made to that case for the reasons upon which the reversal of this case is predic......
-
Wright v. State
... ... [46 S.E.2d 520] ... trial, is unaccompanied by any evidence in the record showing ... how or under what circumstance the defendant previously ... possessed whisky. The decision herein is controlled by the ... decision of this Court in Palmer v. State, 75 Ga.App. 789, 44 ... S.E.2d 567 decided October 15, 1947, and reference is made to ... that case for the reasons upon which the reversal of this ... case is predicated. Proof of other crimes, independent of the ... offense for which a defendant is on trial, is generally not ... ...