Peeples v. State

• Decision Date: 23 March 1898
• Citation: 103 Ga. 629,29 S.E. 691
• Parties: PEEPLES . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 691

103 Ga. 629

PEEPLES .

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 23, 1898.

Witness as to Character—Examination—Criminal Law—Instructions—Remarks op Court.

1. It is legitimate and proper, when examining witnesses called to prove the good character of one on trial for crime, to inquire of them how long they have known him, for what length of time they have resided in the same community with him, and as to other like matters. Their answers to questions of this nature are relevant, as tending to show their opportunities for acquiring a knowledge of the general character of the accused.

2. The charge of the court, in so far as It dealt with legal principles, was free from material error, but it was in some respects argumentative, and for that reason subject to criticism. Some of the remarks made by the judge when ruling upon questions arising during the trial were objectionable. A minor error was committed in permitting the introduction of hearsay testimony. But, aside from this, it does not affirmatively appear that any other illegal evidence was admitted.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Whitfield county; A. W. Fite, Judge.

T. J. Peeples was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and brings error. Reversed.

R. J. & J. McCamy, Jones & Martin, and J. W. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Sam. P. Maddox, Sol. Gen., and I. E. Shumate, for the State.

LUMPKIN, P. J. The plaintiff In error, T. J. Peeples, who was convicted upon an indictment charging him with having received from Walter Bohannon stolen goods, knowing the same to have been stolen, complains of the overruling of his motion for a new trial. It contains many grounds. Some of them relate to questions which can hardly arise at the new trial which we shall grant, and others are not of sufficient Importance to require special notice at our hands.

1. The accused relied largely In his defense upon proof of his previous good character, and called to the stand, for the purpose of establishing the same, quite a number of witnesses. His counsel offered to inquire of them "how long they had known him, how near they had lived to him, and how Intimately acquainted with him they were." The court refused to permit this to be done. In our judgment, the court should, within reasonable limits, have allowed an examination of these witnesses upon the line indicated. It would not, of course, have been competent to prove by them particular acts of the accused tending to show good character, or allow them to state their personal opinions as to his uprightness and integrity. They could only testify as to their knowledge of his general character or reputation. But, while this is true, we think their answers to questions of the nature above specified would have been relevant, as tending to show their opportunities for acquiring a knowledge...