Sabo v. Futch, 25746

Decision Date08 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 25746,25746
Citation175 S.E.2d 16,226 Ga. 352
PartiesJames SABO v. Jewell FUTCH, Sheriff.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

George T. Talley, Valdosta, Blackwell, Walker & Gray, W. L. Blackwell, Jr., Miami, Fla., for appellant.

George A. Horkan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Moultrie, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FELTON, Justice.

1. Testimony concerning information acquired solely through books and records kept by a third person is inadmissible, as hearsay. Owsley & Son v. Woolhopter 14 Ga. 124(3); Knox Metal Products, Inc. v. Watson, 100 Ga.App. 832, 834, 112 S.E.2d 295 and cit.; Maryfield Plantation v. Harris Gin Co., 116 Ga.App. 744, 747, 159 S.E.2d 125 and cit.

2. Where, in a case in which the evidence on the main and controlling issue is close and conflicting, hearsay testimony is erroneously admitted as having probative value, and which could have been considered by the trior of fact and have influenced the verdict or judgment, the error is hurtful, entitling the defendant, against whom the verdict or judgment was rendered, to a new trial. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Ross, 107 Ga. 73(2), 32 S.E. 904; First Nat. Bank of Sparta v. City of Sparta, 154 Ga. 25(3), 114 S.E. 221; Knox Metal Products, Inc. v. Watson, supra, 100 Ga.App. p. 835, 112 S.E.2d 295.

3. Accordingly, in this habeas corpus case, where the main and controlling issue was whether or not the petitioner was in the State of Louisiana on the date of his alleged offense there, so as to be subject to extradition to that State, the evidence on this issue was close and conflicting, and the only direct evidence opposing the petitioner's testimony that he was not in Louisiana on said date was the vague, ambiguous and contradictory testimony of a witness whose credibility was attacked by evidence that her testimony might have been given for the purpose of obtaining leniency for her convicted husband in Louisiana, and where the trial judge, sitting as the trior of fact, permitted on cross-examination, over petitioner's objection, the reading of an unidentified, unauthenticated copy of an alleged Louisiana motel receipt showing petitioner's registration there on the date of the alleged violation, such testimony was hearsay and, notwithstanding the fact that the copy itself was not introduced in evidence, the admission of such testimony was reversible error, since the fact that the judge allowed it to be read over valid objections indicates that it could have been considered by him and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Mercer v. Woodard
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1983
    ...of the evidence complained of had no effect upon the result of the trial and therefore the error was harmless. Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352(2), 175 S.E.2d 16 (1970); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Thrift, 10. Defendants' contention that the denial of their motion for directed verdict constitutes ......
  • Sabo v. Futch
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1971
    ...Atty., Moultrie, for appellee. FELTON, Justice. For the decision on the first appearance of this case in this court see Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352, 175 S.E.2d 16. On the second trial before the trial judge he denied the petition for habeas corpus and remanded the appellant to the appellee, ......
  • Hall v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1979
    ...absence of any authentication of the records which his testimony purported to track, his testimony was inadmissible. Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352(1)(3), 175 S.E.2d 16 (1970). Since the testimony clearly was prejudicial, the convictions must be reversed. Sabo v. Futch, supra 5. Defendant argue......
  • Wiggins v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1982
    ...the witness testified that someone told him so, or that he obtained his knowledge from records kept by someone else. Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352(1), 175 S.E.2d 16 (1970); Nichols v. State, 133 Ga.App. 717, 213 S.E.2d 20 (1975); McCormick, supra. Compare, Hall v. State, 244 Ga. 86, 92, fn. 5,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT