Redd v. State, 53512
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Citation | 141 Ga.App. 888,234 S.E.2d 812 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 53512,53512,3 |
| Parties | R. A. REDD v. The STATE |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1977 |
Page 812
v.
The STATE.
Page 814
[141 Ga.App. 892] Ham, Mills & Freeman, W. Franklin Freeman, Jr., Forsyth, for appellant.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., Kenneth R. Waldrep, Asst. Dist. Atty., Barnesville, for appellee.
[141 Ga.App. 888] MARSHALL, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction of two counts of violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Held :
1. The trial judge did not err in permitting, over objection, the sheriff to testify that the undercover agent, Smarr, had told him that he had " fronted" part of the marijuana he had purchased from the defendant to another person, meaning that he had loaned part of the marijuana to that person, who was to repay him in kind. This hearsay evidence was admissible under Code § 38-302 to explain a course of conduct by the undercover agent, viz., what he had done with the contraband received from the defendant, which was relevant to explain why some of it was missing when it was delivered to the sheriff. Although it would have been possible to elicit this evidence directly from the undercover agent, its admission in evidence by way of the sheriff's testimony had the advantage of possibly greater credibility than the testimony of the undercover agent, whose credibility was questioned because of his own previous use of marijuana. Cf., Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440, (3), 228 S.E.2d 592 (1976). Likewise, the admission in evidence of this testimony was not a ground for mistrial. Enumerated [141 Ga.App. 889] errors 1 and 2 are without merit.
2. Enumerated error 3 objects to the judge's having permitted the sheriff to testify concerning the credibility, or "bolster the good character," of witness Smarr at a time when the witness' character had not been attacked or his credibility questioned. "To bolster a witness means to introduce evidence of the good reputation of a witness for truth and veracity, for the purpose of supporting the witness' testimony and is not admissible when offered by the party calling the witness, until the character of the witness has been attacked by the adverse party." Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440(4), 228 S.E.2d 592, supra, (4). Although the "bolstering" was injected prior to the witness' taking the stand, and hence may have been somewhat premature, the admission of the evidence is not a sufficient ground for the grant of a new trial unless on its face it is manifestly prejudicial or the enumeration of error shows wherein it was harmful. Quick v. State, supra, (4). In the instant case, the defendant's counsel, in her opening statement to the jury, had stated her intention to show that witness-to-be Smarr was not worthy of belief.
Furthermore, defense counsel waived such objection. The prosecution asked the sheriff whether he had found anything dishonest that Smarr had done with his (sheriff's) money all the time he worked with him. After defense counsel's objection was made, the court pointed out her previously mentioned statement of intention to the jury, whereupon she replied, "All right, in the event that he wishes to put in such evidence, the only evidence that's admissible would be the reputation of the witness for good or bad character, not any particular transaction." Thereafter, the sheriff was allowed to testify that the witness' reputation for honesty was good and that he would believe him under oath, with no objection except "I still say it's out of time." Under the circumstances this testimony was not erroneously admitted in evidence.
3. Enumerated error 4 is the admission over objection of a photograph of the bearded defendant as he appeared at the time of the "buys" in question. It is urged that this photograph was unnecessarily admitted, since counsel admitted the defendant's identity, and that its admission added to the prosecution's statement in the [141 Ga.App. 890] presence of the jury, that Smarr had to have a long beard and long hair in order to make drug buys created the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, No. S99A0990.
...here, the court fully instructs on the essential elements of the crime charged, including the requisite intent. [Cits.]" Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888(4), 234 S.E.2d 812 (1977). See also Page v. State, 256 Ga. 191(1), 345 S.E.2d 600 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. -------- Note......
-
Page v. State, No. 42762
...crime ... beyond a reasonable doubt," and instructed the jury fully on the essential elements of the crimes charged. See Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888(4), 234 S.E.2d 812 2. Contrary to appellant's 9th enumeration, the court did not [256 Ga. 192] commit reversible error by charging the lang......
-
Robinson v. State, No. A05A1002.
...attack throughout the trial, denying the truth of her allegations in his subsequent trial testimony. 5. See id.; see also Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888, 889(2), 234 S.E.2d 812 (1977) (trial court did not err in allowing State to rehabilitate credibility of witness before his credibility ac......
-
Strong v. State, No. 62950
...of the police officers was admissible to explain their conduct. Mooney v. State, 243 Ga. 373, 254 S.E.2d 337 (1979); Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888, 234 S.E.2d 812 Judgment affirmed. BANKE and CARLEY, JJ., concur. ...
-
Ward v. State, S99A0990.
...here, the court fully instructs on the essential elements of the crime charged, including the requisite intent. [Cits.]" Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888(4), 234 S.E.2d 812 (1977). See also Page v. State, 256 Ga. 191(1), 345 S.E.2d 600 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. -------- Note......
-
Page v. State, 42762
...crime ... beyond a reasonable doubt," and instructed the jury fully on the essential elements of the crimes charged. See Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888(4), 234 S.E.2d 812 2. Contrary to appellant's 9th enumeration, the court did not [256 Ga. 192] commit reversible error by charging the lang......
-
Robinson v. State, A05A1002.
...attack throughout the trial, denying the truth of her allegations in his subsequent trial testimony. 5. See id.; see also Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888, 889(2), 234 S.E.2d 812 (1977) (trial court did not err in allowing State to rehabilitate credibility of witness before his credibility ac......
-
Strong v. State, 62950
...of the police officers was admissible to explain their conduct. Mooney v. State, 243 Ga. 373, 254 S.E.2d 337 (1979); Redd v. State, 141 Ga.App. 888, 234 S.E.2d 812 Judgment affirmed. BANKE and CARLEY, JJ., concur. ...