Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29827,29827 |
| Citation | 234 Ga. 635,217 S.E.2d 152 |
| Parties | Danny THOMAS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert D. Peckham, Jack H. Affleck, John W. Timmons, Jr., Athens, for appellant.
Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., James Wilson Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Athens, Arthur
K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Kirby G. Atkinson, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for rape and a fifteen-year sentence. Three errors are enumerated in this court. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that all three enumerated errors are without merit, and the judgment must be affirmed.
1. The first enumerated error complains of the admission of evidence, over objection, tending to show that the appellant committed an offense wholly independent of that for which he was being tried. During the course of the trial a 'surprise witness' came to the attention of the District Attorney. This witness testified that she was the victim of similar treatment by the accused on a prior occasion to that for which he was being tried in the instant case. The name and address of this witness had not been furnished to the defendant prior to trial, but the District Attorney stated in his place that the testimony sought to be presented by the witness was newly discovered and that opposing counsel had been made aware of the identity of the witness immediately upon learning that she possessed information relevant to the case on trial. Under the facts stated in this record, it was not error to permit this witness to testify. Scott v. State, 230 Ga. 413, 197 S.E.2d 338 (1973).
Acknowledging that Hunt v. The State, 233 Ga. 329, 211 S.E.2d 288 (1974), holds otherwise, the appellant urges that the testimony elicited from this 'surprise witness' was inadmissible under the rule laid down in Larkins v. State, 230 Ga. 418, 197 S.E.2d 367 (1973). We need only say here that Hunt overruled Larkins and Hunt now sets forth the applicable rule. Since the evidence elicited from the witness in this case 'would show the intent, motive, plan, scheme, and bent of mind of the appellant, and was relevant on the issue of whether or not the prosecutrix consented to the sexual acts,' its admission was not erroneous.
2. The second enumerated error complains of the victim's description of the details of the alleged rape reported by her to an officer, such testimony by the officer of the reported details being hearsay and not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBee v. State
...[has] a direct bearing on appellant's bent of mind." O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. at 638(1), 318 S.E.2d 66; see also Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 635, 636, 217 S.E.2d 152 (1975); Hunt v. State, 233 Ga. 329, 211 S.E.2d 288 (1974). Such evidence would tend to rebut appellant's claim of consent by......
-
Testerman v. State, 382
...P.2d 946 (1976); McLean v. United States, 377 A.2d 74 (D.C.App.1977); Huffman v. State, 301 So.2d 815 (Fla.App.1974); Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 635, 217 S.E.2d 152 (1975); State v. Bell, 283 N.C. 472, 196 S.E.2d 510 Lastly, in assessing the inflammatory or prejudicial nature of the prior sex......
-
State v. Saltarelli
...State, 245 Ga. 62, 262 S.E.2d 818 (1980) (evidence admissible to show intent, motive, plan, scheme, and bent of mind); Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 635, 217 S.E.2d 152 (1975) (evidence admissible to show intent, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind of the accused, and lack of consent of victim); ......
-
Decker v. State
...and was relevant on the issue of whether or not the prosecutrix consented to the sexual acts.' This rule was reaffirmed in Thomas v. State, 234 Ga. 635, 217 S.E.2d 152. Moreover, this assertion was made during the opening statement as to what the state expected to prove. The court in its pr......