Salisbury v. State, 23692
| Decision Date | 22 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23692,23692 |
| Citation | 150 S.E.2d 819,222 Ga. 549 |
| Parties | Henry Cook SALISBURY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
George G. Finch, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, J. Robert Sparks, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Carter A. Setliff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Clurt
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of robbery by force. In accordance with the verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy and sentence of twenty years he was sentenced to this period of servitude. The appeal is from the judgment and sentence with numerous enumerations of error involving objections to evidence, the failure to allow evidence, a denial of a request to charge, the denial of a motion for mistrial, and alleged abuse of counsel by the court which deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. Held:
1. When a defense witness had testified that she knew the accused was at another place than the place where the crime was committed at the proven time of the crime, it was permissible for the State's attorney on cross examination to ask her if she reported this fact to the officers or to anyone. This circumstance bears upon her credibility. Of course no law required her to so report, but the request to charge went further and would have instructed the jury so as not to disallow their consideration of her failure to report as it might reflect upon her credibility. There is no error in enumerations 1 and 2. A sifting cross examination is an effective means for discovering the truth and is a right conferred by law (Post v. State, 201 Ga. 81, 39 S.E.2d Code § 38-1705) which must not be destroyed by a charge as here requested. Downer v. Bazzell, 216 Ga. 712, 119 S.E.2d 556.
2. For two reasons the third enumeration of error is without merit. The complaint is that it was error to allow a State's witness to testify that a victim of the robbery identified the accused. First, the ruling in Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764, 95 S.E.2d 792, supports the ruling allowing the testimony. Second, defense counsel on cross examination had the witness to go into detail as to what was said by the victim. Defendant would not be helped by ruling out the direct testimony, and he will not be heard to complain of the testimony elicited by his counsel.
3. The trial judge is empowered by the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 24; Code Ann. § 6-805(f)) to make corrections in the transcript or record. There is no merit in enumeration 4 complaining of such action by the judge.
4. The record upon which enumeration 5 is based is confused by all the talk in the judge's chambers by many persons, most of which is irrelevant and will not be recited here. Yet, since the basis of alleged error is the judge's refusal to allow defendant's counsel to recall as witnesses the two convicts there involved for the purpose of testifying to what they said there, we find one thing the witness Spurling stated which was relevant and beneficial to the accused. That statement was: 'I know the boy (accused) didn't to the robbery.' This is not the expression of an opinion but rather the assertion of a fact of which he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State, 25258
...without merit. Whippler v. State, 218 Ga. 198, 204, 126 S.E.2d 744; Smithey v. State, 219 Ga. 247(1), 132 S.E.2d 666; Salisbury v. State, 222 Ga. 549(2), 150 S.E.2d 819. 2. Enumerations of error numbers 7, 8 and 9 complain of the refusal of the court to allow counsel for the defendant to cr......
-
Cape v. State
...v. State, 221 Ga. 718, 146 S.E.2d 776, (1966), hereinafter referred to as the first Salisbury case. The second Salisbury case, 222 Ga. 549, 150 S.E.2d 819, (1966), dealt with other matters, whereas the third Salisbury case, 223 Ga. 414, 156 S.E.2d 48, (1967), is in In the first Salisbury ca......
-
Brown v. State
...confession, though it was introduced over his objection. Maddox v. State, 118 Ga.App. 678(2), 164 S.E.2d 861. And see Salisbury v. State, 222 Ga. 549(2), 150 S.E.2d 819; Smithey v. State, 219 Ga. 247(1), 132 S.E.2d 666. 'Allowing the introduction of illegal evidence offered to establish par......
-
State v. Silva
...a family member. State v. Plowden, 126 N.J.Super. at 230, 313 A.2d 802. The Plowden rule is also represented by Salisbury v. State, 222 Ga. 549, 150 S.E.2d 819 (1966), and People v. Ortiz, 207 Ill.App.3d 1, 151 Ill.Dec. 957, 962, 565 N.E.2d 228, 233 (1990). Treating the matter as discretion......