Radford v. State, 52525
| Decision Date | 26 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52525,No. 1,52525,1 |
| Parties | Charles RADFORD v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Ray, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of theft by taking. Held:
1. The indictment alleged that defendant was known by several aliases. At trial defendant orally objected to the jury being informed of the allegations concerning an alias on the grounds that it placed the defendant's character in issue. It is permissible in Georgia for a grand jury to allege in an indictment that the defendant has been known under several aliases, which allegations are made for the purpose of proper identification. Andrews v. State, 196 Ga. 84, 26 S.E.2d 263. Further, we know of no authority which grants to a trial judge the discretionary power to strike or otherwise prevent a jury from hearing or seeing the allegations pertaining to an alias on the ground that it places the defendant's character in issue.
2. Defendant also maintains that error was committed by the use of the aliases in connection with the allegations in the indictment that defendant had also violated the recidivist statute. This issue was not raised and ruled on during trial and it will not be considered on appeal. Sanders v. State, 134 Ga.App. 825, 216 S.E.2d 371.
3. The court charged the jury on asportation. It is contended that the words with 'intent to steal' should have been included in this part of the charge. There is no merit to this argument as elsewhere in the charge the jury was instructed that an intent to commit theft was an essential element of the crime charged; and that the asportation or taking of the property must be with the intention of depriving another of his property.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamison v. State
...sending of the indictment out with the jury with two aliases on its face. There is no merit to this contention. Radford v. State, 140 Ga.App. 195(1), 230 S.E.2d 345 (1976). 6. Appellant's remaining two substantive enumerations of error are not properly before this court because no motion to......
-
Hughes v. State, 63334
...dicta." See also Stevens v. State, 247 Ga. 698, 278 S.E.2d 398; Stinchcomb v. State, 119 Ga. 442, 46 S.E. 639, and see Radford v. State, 140 Ga.App. 195, 230 S.E.2d 345. 2. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to correct an omission in the transcript. According to a......
-
McClendon v. State, 67900
...on grounds that it might place the accused's character into evidence, for that is not the result of such an averment. Radford v. State, 140 Ga.App. 195(1), 230 S.E.2d 345. Moreover, it is perfectly proper to elicit testimony as to the use of the alias. Haas v. State, 146 Ga.App. 729, 732(5)......
-
Mayfield v. State, 57877
...S.E.2d 35. 2. The indictment alleged that defendant was known by an alias. This was not erroneous under the law of this state. Radford v. State, 140 Ga.App. 195, 230 S.W.2d 3. At the conclusion of the charge to the jury, the court queried the defendant's counsel as to whether defendant had ......