Smith v. State

Decision Date15 October 1918
Docket Number865.
Citation96 S.E. 1042,148 Ga. 467
PartiesSMITH v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in admitting, over the objection that it was "too indefinite and too far removed from the time and place of the killing," evidence that the decedent said to his wife, a short time before leaving their home, that he was "going over to the hollow to hide a still; him and Bob Smith and Charlie Smith, Bose Hudgins, and Jim Fortenberry. He said he was going there to hide it. They were looking for the revenues next morning. He said he would have to go, that they were down there waiting for him, Mr. Hudgins was waiting for him, and get the still and worm before it got so dark."

Nor did the court err in admitting, over the objection that it put the defendant's character in issue, the following evidence of Charlie Smith: "I know when Bob Smith was arrestel. He was arrested before Moore was. They found some whisky when Moore was arrested. I know about the raid and the arrest. I was arrested. I know where the still was; it was back up in the mountains from Bob's house." While this evidence may tend incidentally to put the defendant's character in issue, its chief effect in this case was to show motive and to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, irrespective of his character.

The court did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based upon the affidavit of a witness for the state, in which affidavit the witness changed in certain material respects the testimony given on the trial.

Error from Superior Court, Polk County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.

Bob Smith was convicted of crime, and he brings error. Affirmed.

W. W. Mundy and Bunn & Trawick, all of Cedartown, for plaintiff in error.

J. R. Hutcheson, Sol. Gen., of Douglasville, Ault & Wright, of Cedartown, Clifford Walker, Atty. Gen., and M. C. Bennet, of Atlanta, for the State.

BECK, P.J.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Howell v. State, (No. 5152.)
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1926
    ...though it may tend incidentally to put the defendant's character in issue. Owensby v. State, 149 Ga. 19, 98 S. E. 552; Smith v. State, 148 Ga. 467 (2), 96 S. E. 1042; Little v. State, 150 Ga, 728, 729, 105 S. E. 359. 4. In ground 16 of the motion for new trial plaintiff in error complains b......
  • Nashville v. Patterson, s. 22081, 22082.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1932
    ...81 Ga. 110 (5), 7 S. E. 142; Clark v. State, 117 Ga. 254 (8), 43 S. E. 853; Heath v. Clark, 141 Ga. 65, 80 S. E. 288; Smith v. State, 148 Ga. 467 (3), 96 S. E. 1042; Wilson's Ex'r v. Keekley, 107 Va. 592, 59 S. E. 383. Where, upon the trial of a suit to recover damages for personal injuries......
  • Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Patterson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1932
    ... ... the verdict found. Wallace v. Tumlin, 42 Ga. 462 ... (5); O'Kelly v. Felker, 71 Ga. 775 (2); Hunt ... v. State of Georgia, 81 Ga. 140 (5), 7 S.E. 142; ... Clark v. State, 117 Ga. 254 (8), 43 S.E. 853; ... Heath v. Clark, 141 Ga. 65, 80 S.E. 288; Smith ... ...

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