Smith v. State, 53356
| Decision Date | 18 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53356,No. 3,53356,3 |
| Citation | 232 S.E.2d 401,141 Ga.App. 64 |
| Parties | Haywood SMITH v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles M. Leverett, Macon, for appellant.
Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, for appellee.
1. The indictment charges the appellant with the theft by receiving three stolen tool boxes containing mechanic's tools. The evidence shows that on the night of the theft the appellant was seen in possession of a tool box answering the description of one that was stolen; the next day the appellant was identified as offering to sell for $5.00 a 'box full of tools' that he had 'stole' himself. The evidence supports the verdict. Heilman v. State, 132 Ga.App. 775, 209 S.E.2d 220.
2. The appellant took the stand in his own defense and denied all elements of the offense, his direct testimony being in opposition to that introduced by the state. On cross examination the appellant was repeatedly questioned about the stolen tools and the garage from which they were taken. During this line of questioning the District Attorney asked: 'You said you were a junk dealer?' The appellant responded: (Emphasis supplied.) Upon this testimony it was urged that the appellant had placed his own character in question and the trial judge allowed the appellant's guilty pleas to three prior burglaries into evidence for impeachment purposes.
'(N)o evidence of general bad character or prior convictions shall be admissible unless and until the defendant shall have first put his character in issue. . . .' Code § 38-415. Careful consideration of the transcript of the appellant's testimony reveals that the thrust of the cross examination was the theft of the tools and that the tenor of the appellant's response to those questions was a denial that he was in any way responsible for the theft of those tools. The appellant's response which the state claims opened up the character of the accused is couched in terms of 'stolen tools' and this response is entirely consistent with his prior testimony in which he denied any and all participation in a theft of tools. In other words, the appellant's response, when viewed in the totality of his testimony rather than isolated from the whole, is a specific denial of the crime charged rather than a general declaration of his own good character. Johnson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State, No. A06A0507.
...count for theft by receiving stolen property. See, e.g., Crumpton v. State, 185 Ga.App. 735, 365 S.E.2d 536 (1988); Smith v. State, 141 Ga. App. 64, 232 S.E.2d 401 (1977). ...
-
Murray v. State
...State, 237 Ga. 467(2), 228 S.E.2d 853 (1976); Hughes v. State, 141 Ga.App. 506(2), 233 S.E.2d 872 (1977). Compare, Smith v. State, 141 Ga.App. 64(2), 232 S.E.2d 401 (1977); Lindler v. State, 149 Ga.App. 155, 253 S.E.2d 833 (1979). Accordingly, the certified documents relating to appellant's......
-
Tew v. State
...We find no error. The defendant was not tricked into answering a question which called for character evidence. See Smith v. State, 141 Ga.App. 64(2), 232 S.E.2d 401. His response did open the "character door" and permitted introduction of the contradictory evidence. Shepherd v. State, 239 G......
-
Lester v. State, 55296
...Stephens v. State, 144 Ga.App. 779(2), 242 S.E.2d 371 (1978); Hyatt v. State, 116 Ga.App. 18, 156 S.E.2d 147 (1967); Smith v. State, 141 Ga.App. 64(2), 232 S.E.2d 401 (1977). Since evidence of the prior theft conviction was not offered for the purpose of impeachment or under any other excep......