Price v. State
| Decision Date | 14 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62179,62179 |
| Citation | 160 Ga.App. 245,286 S.E.2d 744 |
| Parties | PRICE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Leo W. Clifton, Sr., Lithia Springs, for appellant.
William A. Foster III, Dist. Atty., Frank C. Winn, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The grand jury of Douglas County returned an indictment in three counts against the defendant. Count 1 charged the defendant with the offense of aggravated battery upon the person of Ann Whittle by throwing boiling water on her. Count 2 charged the defendant with the offense of aggravated assault in that he did unlawfully assault Ann Whittle with a butcher knife. Count 3 charged the defendant with the offense of aggravated assault in that he did unlawfully assault J. C. Whittle with a butcher knife. Defendant was found guilty on all three counts. His motion for new trial based on the general grounds was denied. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. The state's evidence is that the defendant was a guest in the home of his sister and her husband, Ann and J. C. Whittle. One evening the defendant received his sister's permission to boil an egg. He filled a boiler full of water, put an egg in it and put it on the stove. Defendant was out of the kitchen and the water began boiling over, so the sister got up and turned the heat down. Defendant returned and began asking his sister whether she thought the egg was boiled. She answered affirmatively because the water had been boiling over and she had turned the heat down. Defendant then took the boiler off the stove and headed into the den where his sister was sitting and stated to her that he wanted her to look at the egg and see if it was boiled. His sister responded that she could not look at an egg and tell if it was boiled. By then defendant was standing in front of her and asked her to look at the egg. His sister said the egg was done because the water had been boiling that hard. Defendant then "started dumping the water out directly on top of" the sister. The sister jumped up and followed the defendant or either the defendant pulled her by her housecoat (the testimony is uncertain on this point) back toward the kitchen, the defendant still pouring water on the sister. The boiling water poured on the sister resulted in severe injuries requiring several weeks of hospitalization, plastic surgery, and permanent scarring.
Defendant withdrew to the kitchen and obtained a butcher knife with which he advanced on his sister who retreated. She asked him what he was doing and why. Defendant never answered. Defendant continued advancing on his sister who continued to retreat until her husband (J. C. Whittle), aroused by the outcries of his wife, intervened. The husband testified that defendant "had one hand reaching for her, and the butcher knife was headed right for her chest." Defendant and his sister's husband, J. C. Whittle, scuffled. Defendant "was struggling to get the butcher knife up to" the sister's husband, J. C. Whittle, and the struggle was interrupted when defendant's sister struck defendant about the head with a ceramic statute, disabling him, causing defendant to fall limp for a moment before tightening his grip on the knife "[t]rying to come up from the floor." The sister's husband managed to get the butcher knife away from the defendant and told his wife to go get help. Defendant's sister ran to a neighbor's house to call law enforcement officers and her husband was able shortly thereafter to escape from the house.
The defendant testified, denying his identity, asserting he was Jerry Green and not Glen Dallas Price, stating that he did not know Ann or J. C. Whittle and had never seen either of them before shortly prior to the trial. The state responded with rebuttal evidence as to the defendant's identity and mental competence.
After a careful review of the trial transcript and record we find, and so hold, that a rational trier of fact (the jury in the case sub judice) could reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of aggravated battery upon Ann Whittle and the offenses of aggravated assault upon Ann Whittle and J. C. Whittle. Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160, 161(1), 259 S.E.2d 133; Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181(1), 263 S.E.2d 916; Sanders v. State, 246 Ga. 42(1), 268 S.E.2d 628; Jones v. State, 154 Ga.App. 806, 807(1), 270 S.E.2d 201.
2. Defendant's conviction of all of the charges against him are not prohibitive nor inconsistent with the provisions of Code Ann. § 26-1303 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1281), as defendant has not been convicted of both an assault with intent to commit a crime and with that completed crime.
3. Defendant's remaining enumerations of error deal with the trial court allowing the testimony of certain witnesses called on rebuttal. As pointed out in Division 1, the defendant testified, denying his identity, asserting he was Jerry Green and not Glen Dallas Price, stating that he did not know Ann or J. C. Whittle and had never seen either of them before shortly prior to the trial. After the state had presented several rebuttal witnesses and immediately prior to the state calling Dr. Martin Youngleson defendant objected "to any opinion testimony in rebuttal on the grounds the defense has not introduced any evidence relative to any expert witnesses relevant to any opinions." Now the defendant seeks to argue by brief that Dr. Youngleson was not on the list of witnesses presented to the defendant after demand had been made for a list of witnesses. No such objection was made at the trial with reference to Dr. Youngleson's testimony here, hence, if there be any error with reference to the issue of whether he was or was not on the list of witnesses, same was waived. See Smith v. State, 142 Ga.App. 406, 236 S.E.2d 107; Stafford v. State, 146 Ga.App. 49(1), 245 S.E.2d 361. Further, calling an unlisted witness in rebuttal is not error. See Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929, 930(5), 214 S.E.2d 365; Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693, 707(13), 221 S.E.2d 547; Mize v. State, 240 Ga. 197, 199(6), 240 S.E.2d 11.
As to the objection made that "the defense has not introduced any evidence relative to any expert witnesses" hence there was nothing to rebut, this objection is not meritorious inasmuch as the defendant had raised an issue as to his identity and denied any knowledge of other individuals involved in this trial, thus creating an impression of mental illness. Consequently, the state was authorized to offer rebuttal witnesses with reference to his mental condition and in calling Dr. Youngleson as an expert witness relevant to same. The trial judge is clothed with a very broad discretion in allowing additional evidence at any stage of a trial, and no abuse of discretion has been shown here. See Johnson v. State, 164 Ga. 47(2), 137 S.E. 553; Smith v. State, 126 Ga. 803, 804(3), 55 S.E. 1024; Flynt v. State, 153 Ga.App. 232, 244(3), 264 S.E.2d 669. This enumeration of error is not meritorious.
4. As to the witness Collins E. Walton, defendant contends on appeal that this witness should not have been allowed to testify because at trial he was allegedly serving in a dual capacity as both bailiff and prosecutor and had on occasion conversed with the jury and transported defendant to and from the jail. Although unsupported by argument in defendant's brief this enumeration of error also contends that this witness should not have been allowed to testify because he was not listed as a witness for the state after demand had been made for a list of witnesses. Defendant's contention in regard to the absence of this witness from the list of witnesses supplied by the state is not supported by argument and citation of authority, hence it must be deemed abandoned. Rule 15(c)(2) (Code Ann. § 24-3615); Andrews v. State, 156 Ga.App. 734, 736(6), 275 S.E.2d 782.
Neither of these contentions was asserted in the trial court. These contentions may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Stafford v. State, 146 Ga.App. 49(1), 245 S.E.2d 361, supra.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record submitted from the trial court suggesting that this witness in fact acted as a bailiff during the trial of the case. We may not rely upon factual assertions contained only in the briefs of the parties....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. State
...to face; Ewing v. State, 169 Ga.App. 680, 314 S.E.2d 695 (1984), potash thrown in face and eyes requiring skin graft; Price v. State, 160 Ga.App. 245, 286 S.E.2d 744 (1981), boiling water thrown on victim causing severe injuries requiring several weeks of hospitalization, plastic surgery an......
-
Franks v. State
...Muniz, supra at 602 n. 14, 110 S.Ct. at 2650 n. 14; Morris v. State, 161 Ga.App. 141(2), 288 S.E.2d 102 (1982); Price v. State, 160 Ga.App. 245(5), 286 S.E.2d 744 (1981). Like most federal and state courts, we are unwilling to create a broad exception to the Fifth Amendment for police quest......
-
White v. State
...123 Ga.App. 822, 182 S.E.2d 542 (1971). Compare Morris v. State, 161 Ga.App. 141(2), 288 S.E.2d 102 (1982); Price v. State, 160 Ga.App. 245, 248(5), 286 S.E.2d 744 (1981). There is no indication in this case that any subterfuge or psychological pressure was employed to obtain either the wai......
-
Scott v. State
...Ga. 317, 318(2), 271 S.E.2d 360 (1980). 6. In the Interest of H.S., 199 Ga.App. 481, 405 S.E.2d 323 (1991). 7. Price v. State, 160 Ga.App. 245-246(1), 286 S.E.2d 744 (1981). 8. OCGA § 9. Arnett v. State, 245 Ga. 470, 473(3), 265 S.E.2d 771 (1980). 10. Maloy v. State, 237 Ga.App. 873, 874(2)......