Ruff v. State, 49526
| Decision Date | 05 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 49526,49526,3 |
| Citation | 132 Ga.App. 568,208 S.E.2d 581 |
| Parties | Elton E. RUFF v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Theodore E. Smith, Atlanta, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Leonard W. Rhodes, J. Ralph McClelland, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., Decatur, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of aggravated sodomy. On February 13, 1973, he was sentenced to serve five years. Motion for new trial was filed, supersedeas granted, and defendant given until the final hearing to prepare and file the transcript. The transcript was thereafter filed on March 20, 1973. On March 29, 1974, over one year later, when his original trial defense counsel wished to withdraw the motion and his present defense counsel did not wish to pursue to argue the motion, the court held the motion for new trial was abandoned. Within 30 days of this order (April 8, 1974), defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence. No enumeration of error is raised as to the ruling on the motion for new trial. Held:
1. The appeal does not meet the requirements set forth in Tiller v. State, 224 Ga. 645, 164 S.E.2d 137. The ruling on the motion for new trial absolutely decides adversely to movant each and every ground of said motion for new trial, leaving the judgment on the verdict as the law of the case. See Munn v. Kelliam, 228 Ga. 395, 185 S.E.2d 766; Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263(4), 208, 161 S.E.2d 281. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial can be considered, the law of the case being established thereon.
2. The victim, age 9, advised his older sister within a few minutes after the occurrence of the criminal act what had happened to him; and repeated it to his mother when he arrived home. All of this occurred within a very few minutes of the criminal act, and was a part of the res gestae. There is no merit in the objection to the testimony of the mother and sister in this case. Conoway v. State, 49 Ga.App. 311(2), 175 S.E. 391; Conoway v. State, 171 Ga. 782(1), 784, 156 S.E. 664; Luke v. State, 184 Ga. 551(2), 192 S.E. 37; Hooks v. State, 215 Ga. 869(7), 872, 114 S.E.2d 6.
3. The court made a definite finding, after examination of the child, age 9, that he understood the meaning of testifying under oath. There is no merit in the complaint that the court did not so find. Russell v. State, 83 Ga.App. 841, 65 S.E.2d 264; Ellison v. State, 197 Ga. 129(2), 28 S.E.2d 453; Thurmond v. State, 220 Ga. 277, 138 S.E.2d 372; Turpin v. State, 121 Ga.App. 294(1), 173 S.E.2d 455; Edwards v. State, 226 Ga. 811(3), 812, 177 S.E.2d 668.
4. The defendant was properly identified by the victim at the trial as the person who assaulted him. In addition, there was other testimony as to his res gestae identification of the defendant as the person who committed the criminal act. It is within the discretion of the trial court to allow leading questions, if the examination was carried out by the use of leading questions. There is no merit in this complaint.
5. As to sodomy, proof of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Love v. State
...the case all of the grounds of the motion, and none of the grounds of the motion can later be considered on appeal. Ruff v. State, 132 Ga.App. 568(1), 208 S.E.2d 581 (1974). However, the Ruff decision was based on the holding in Munn v. Kelliam, 228 Ga. 395, 185 S.E.2d 766 (1971). When Munn......
-
Stonaker v. State
...nature of an oath, the examination was sufficient to determine that she did. Frasier v. State, 143 Ga. 322, 85 S.E. 124; Ruff v. State, 132 Ga.App. 568, 208 S.E.2d 581, and cases cited in Division 2 thereof. The case of Warthen v. State, 11 Ga.App. 151, 152, 74 S.E. 894, relied upon by defe......
-
Clark v. State, 53518
...156 S.E. 664; Epps v. State, 216 Ga. 606, 611(2f), 118 S.E.2d 574; Robinson v. State, 232 Ga. 123, 129, 205 S.E.2d 210; Ruff v. State, 132 Ga.App. 568(2), 208 S.E.2d 581. Since I would affirm the judgment, I therefore dissent. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge DEEN and Judge MAR......
-
Thompson v. State
...1249, 1299); Carter v. State, 122 Ga.App. 21(4), 176 S.E.2d 238; Knight v. State, 130 Ga.App. 551(2), 203 S.E.2d 911; Ruff v. State, 132 Ga.App. 568(5), 208 S.E.2d 581; 2) we find that the jury was authorized by the evidence to conclude that penetration 3. Defendant contends that under Code......