Prather v. State, 24316
| Decision Date | 20 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24316,24316 |
| Citation | 223 Ga. 721,157 S.E.2d 734 |
| Parties | W. C. PRATHER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Smith & Cato, Ralph C. Smith, Jr., Bainbridge, for appellant.
Fred Hand, Jr., Sol. Gen., Pelham, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mathew Robins, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Obviously an objection to the State's using a witness whose name had not furnished the defendant, in the absence of a prior demand for a list of witnesses, apparently predicated upon Code Ann. § 27-1403 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 430, 431) which is based upon a constitutional provision (Ga.L.1945; Code Ann. § 2-105) and which provides that is without merit. (italics ours.) The words 'on demand' italicized in the foregoing quotation demonstrate that all that is required depends solely upon these words. Absent such demand nothing is required. This record shows no semblance of such a demand; therefore it was not error to allow the State to have the witness testify.
2. In light of the supporting evidence, the objection to the allowance in evidence of the photographs of the body of the deceased are without merit. The doctor who performed the examination of the body testified that the pictures were fair representations of the conditions at the time the pictures were taken. It is futile to complain that the pictures are prejudicial or inflammatory when they were used for identification of the deceased and to show the location of the wound at a vital point in his skull. These were relevant to the State's case and were clearly pertinent evidence. See Biegun v. State, 206 Ga. 618, 623, 58 S.E.2d 149; Hill v. State, 201 Ga. 300(6), 39 S.E.2d 675; Thompkins v. State, 222 Ga. 420(5), 151 S.E.2d 153; Manor v. State, 223 Ga. 594, 157 S.E.2d 431. Further, the argument that some portion of the photograph had been cut and removed does not even touch the hard fact that what was introduced truly represented the body at that time. There is no merit in these complaints.
3. Abundance of evidence was presented to authorize the introduction of the rifle. The evidence shows that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...it must appear that a demand for such names was made before arraignment. Code Ann. § 27-1403 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 430, 431); Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 721(1), 157 S.E.2d 734; Jones v. State, 224, 283(5), 161 S.E.2d 302. No such demand was made in this 4. Error, if any, in permitting the sheriff ......
-
Smith v. State, 45832
...Green v. State, 223 Ga. 611, 613, 157 S.E.2d 257; Beeks v. State, 225 Ga. 200(1), 167 S.E.2d 156. It must be timely. Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 721, 157 S.E.2d 734; Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283, 161 S.E.2d 302; Green v. State, supra. The error may in any event prove to be harmless. Huffaker v......
-
Bennett v. State, 45306
...329, 331, 145 S.E.2d 80; Burgess v. State, 93 Ga. 304(4), 20 S.E. 331; Powers v. State, 172 Ga. 1(15), 157 S.E. 195; Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 721(3), 157 S.E.2d 734. 4. The following charge was assigned as error: 'The court instructs you further that the law presumes every homicide to be m......
- Waldrop v. Bettis