Walden v. State, 33307
Decision Date | 30 January 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 33307,No. 2,33307,2 |
Citation | 83 Ga.App. 231,63 S.E.2d 232 |
Parties | WALDEN v. STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Special ground 2 is without merit as it assigns error upon the exclusion of evidence which the court later expressly admitted for the jury's consideration.
2. 'The right to a thorough and sifting cross examination is not abridged by the action of the judge in confining it to matters that are in some manner relevant to the issues of the case on trial.' Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782(3), 28 S.E.2d 139.
3. Special grounds three and four are without merit for the reasons stated in the opinion.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict.
James R. Venable, H. C. Morgan, John L. Respess, Jr., all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., William Hall, and Frank French, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Raymond Walden was tried and convicted of larceny of an automobile under an indictment which charged him with the theft of G. L. Martin's black Ford coupe on September 2, 1949. His motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds and four special grounds, was overruled and he excepted.
1. Special ground 2, numbered 5, of the motion for a new trial, assigning error upon the exclusion of certain of the testimony of John W. Mayes, a witness for the defendant, is without merit; for, while it appears from the record that the court first excluded the testimony in question, the court later instructed the jury:
2. In special ground 1, numbered 4, error is assigned upon the refusal of the trial court to allow G. L. Martin, the alleged owner of the automobile in the indictment and a witness for the State, to give, on cross examination, the names of persons to whom he had lent his car during the period from March to September when he was parking it on the lot from which the State contends it was stolen. The errors assigned upon the exclusion of this answer are that the defendant's counsel was seeking to prove by the question that the car in the indictment was lent by the witness and alleged owner of the car to one Howard Farmer on the occasion it is alleged to have been stolen; that Farmer was an illegal whiskey dealer and that he was using the car for the purpose of hauling non-tax paid whiskey at the time the car was supposed to be stolen; and the defendant was, by the exclusion of the witness' answer, denied a thorough and sifting cross-examination of the State's prosecuting witness.
Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782(3), 28 S.E.2d 13, 141. No attempt was made during the trial to illustrate the purpose of the evidence sought in reference to the question; that is to say, counsel did not show why it was material to whom the witness had lent the automobile during a period of some six months prior to the time of the alleged theft of the car. See also Robinson v. Murray, 198 Ga. 690(4), 32 S.E.2d 496, and citations; Aycock v. State, 62 Ga.App. 812, 10 S.E.2d 84.
3. Special grounds 3 and 4, numbered 6 and 7, being closely related upon principle, will be considered together. Special ground 3 assigns error upon the court's charging: The error assigned is that the charge was erroneous and inapplicable to the facts and evidence submitted in the case as there was no evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant's possession of the car was recent. Special ground 4 assigns error upon the failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheffield v. State
...in some manner relevant to the issues of the case on trial * * * Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782(3), 28 S.E.2d 139, 141.' Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231(2), 63 S.E.2d 232. See Quinton v. Peck, 195 Ga. 299(5), 24 S.E.2d 36. 2. Enumerations of error 4 and 11 assert that the admission of certai......
-
Horton v. State, 26943
...State, 74 Ga. 801; Taylor v. State, 118 Ga.App. 605, 164 S.E.2d 876; Mathews v. State, 103 Ga.App. 743, 120 S.E.2d 359; Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231, 63 S.E.2d 232. As stated in Aiken v. State, supra, p. 845, 178 S.E.2d p. 206: 'It was not erroneous to charge this principle, where the ev......
-
Rogers v. State
...v. State, 104 Ga.App. 190, 192(2), 121 S.E.2d 267 (1961)), coupled with all of the other circumstances (see Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231, 232(3), 63 S.E.2d 232 (1951); Nesbit v. State, 71 Ga.App. 744, 746(2), 32 S.E.2d 207 (1944)) shown by the totality of the evidence in the case, suppor......
-
Tucker v. State
...restrict the exercise of the right of cross-examination. Code, § 38-1705; Post v. State, 201 Ga. 81, 39 S.E.2d 1; Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231(2), 63 S.E.2d 232. 4. It is not error in the absence of request to fail to charge the provisions of Code, § 26-201 that there must in every crime......