Utzman v. Srochi, 47279
| Decision Date | 21 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 47279,47279,2 |
| Citation | 193 S.E.2d 195,127 Ga.App. 294 |
| Parties | F. M. UTZMAN v. Jack SROCHI |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Poole, Pearce, Cooper & Smith, William F. Lozier, Walter G. Cooper, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant filed a claim against the appellee for damages which resulted from a collision between the appellee's automobile and the appellant's motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the appellee and the case is here for review. Held:
1. The collision took place at an intersection. The appellee testified that the traffic signal was green when he proceeded to make a left turn. The appellant, while unable to remember the events due to injuries he received, had other evidence which conflicted with that of the appellee. Considering the entire transcript the evidence supports the verdict of the jury.
2. Enumerations of error numbers 6 and 7 complain that certain charges given by the trial judge were incorrect. No objections to these charges were made as required by Code Ann. § 70-207 (), and the enumerations of error are therefore not considered.
3. The eighth enumeration of error argues that it was error for the trial judge to fail to give a certain request to charge. No objection to this failure was made by the appellant and the enumeration is without merit. Johnson v. Myers, 118 Ga.App. 773(2), 165 S.E.2d 739.
4. During the trial it was proved that the plaintiff had plead guilty to the crime of larceny of an automobile. Counsel for the plaintiff subsequently attempted to question him in regard to the reasons why he had plead guilty. Defendant's counsel made an objection which was sustained. Plaintiff's counsel then perfected the record by stating, out of the presence of the jury, what the plaintiff would have testified in regard to this matter. Whether a witness should be allowed to testify as to the circumstances of his conviction or guilty plea is a subject of divergence of judicial opinion. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 534(e), p. 469. While the writer is of the opinion that such testimony should not be admissible, the contrary has been held to be the law in this state. In Thorpe v. Wray, 68 Ga. 359(7), it is stated: 'Where counsel for one party for the purpose of impeaching the opposing party, who was on the stand as a witness, caused her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stovall v. State
...in rebuttal of such fact to show the reason why [he] entered that plea." Thorpe v. Wray, 68 Ga. 359, 360 (1882); Utzman v. Srochi, 127 Ga.App. 294, 193 S.E.2d 195 (1972). 3. Appellant's fourth, fifth, and sixth enumerations center upon the state's calling as a witness a deputy sheriff to wh......
-
Mack v. Barnes, 47882
...Company v. Cooper, 126 Ga.App. 360, 190 S.E.2d 629; Seabolt v. Cheesborough, 127 Ga.App. 254, 193 S.E.2d 238, and Utzman v. Srochi, 127 Ga.App. 294, 193 S.E.2d 195. To avoid the impact of these decisions, appellants argue that their failure to object at the conclusion of the charge should b......
-
Neiswonger v. Janics
...(1983). The verdict in the instant case is supported by the evidence notwithstanding appellee's poor memory. See Utzman v. Srochi, 127 Ga.App. 294(1), 193 S.E.2d 195 (1972). "[T]he driver of the following vehicle must exercise ordinary care to heed the warnings or movement [of the preceding......
-
Belvin v. Houston Fertilizer & Grain Co., Inc.
...followed the line of cases allowing the witness to offer some explanation. Thorpe v. Wray, 68 Ga. 359(7) (1882); Utzman v. Srochi, 127 Ga.App. 294(4), 193 S.E.2d 195 (1972). Therefore, it was error for the trial court not to allow Belvin to offer some explanation. However, in our view, the ......