Watkins v. Davis, 58820
| Decision Date | 05 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58820,58820 |
| Citation | 263 S.E.2d 704,152 Ga.App. 735 |
| Parties | WATKINS et al. v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Russell Wing Lewis, Macon, for appellants.
Stewart R. Brown, Atlanta, for appellee.
Nineteen days prior to his suicide, Allen Watkins, Jr., signed a document which purported to change the beneficiary of an insurance policy on his life to "S. Denise Davis, Niece, 617 Emery Highway, Macon, Georgia." There is no person shown to be the natural subject of decedent's bounty and affection by this name. The decedent insured did have a daughter named Tracy Denise Watkins and a half niece named Sharon Yvonne Davis, neither of whom lived at 617 Emery Highway, the address of the mother of the decedent where decedent was living at the time of his death.
This action was initiated when a complaint was filed on behalf of Sharon Davis against the insurer to compel payment to her of the sum due under the policy. The insurer answered and filed its complaint for interpleader naming as defendants thereunder Denise Watkins, a minor child, and Ossie Mae Watkins, wife of the deceased who was named as beneficiary under the policy prior to the purported change.
Briefly Sharon Davis, the niece of the insured decedent, and Denise Watkins, the daughter of the insured decedent, each contends that she is the intended person the insured named under the purported change of beneficiary. Ossie Mae Watkins contends that her husband did not possess sufficient mental capacity to execute the change of beneficiary.
The case was tried before a jury. Verdict and judgment were in favor of Sharon Davis. Denise Watkins and Ossie Mae Watkins appeal. Held :
1. During the cross examination of the mother of Allen Watkins, Jr., the plaintiff objected to any inquiry as to the events which followed the purported change of beneficiary. The trial court sustained the objection and ruled that any inquiry as to the mental condition of the deceased following the time of the purported beneficiary change was irrelevant. This ruling was also invoked during the direct examination of the sister of the deceased.
Relying upon English v. Shivers, 220 Ga. 737, 740(2), 141 S.E.2d 443, defendants contend that testimony which relates to a reasonable period of time after the execution of the change of beneficiary form is admissible and relevant in determining the state of mind of the decedent at the time of the execution of the change of beneficiary form. Plaintiff responded that in order to show error the record should have been perfected by an offer of proof as to the excluded testimony. Foster v. National Ideal Co., 119 Ga.App. 773(1), 168 S.E.2d 872.
No offer of proof was made as to the excluded testimony of the deceased's mother and sister. The exclusion of the sister's testimony occurred on direct examination; therefore, in the absence of an offer of proof as to what her testimony would be, no error is shown. Any error which occurred in the exclusion of the testimony of the mother was harmless. She had already testified that she had detected no changes in her son's behavior prior to his death and had no idea he planned to commit suicide until the gun went off. She testified Testimony having already been admitted which presented the mother's perception of the state of mind of her son after execution of the change of beneficiary form and prior to his suicide, there does not appear to have been any exclusion of evidence which would have materially affected the findings of the jury.
2. The defendants enumerate as error the following charge to the jury: "Now, in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Kraft Co., Woodkraft Div. v. Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, Local Union 246 (AFL-CIO)
...Request Number 23 were covered by the court's charge as given. Therefore, it was not error to refuse to charge it. Watkins v. Davis, 152 Ga.App. 735(3), 263 S.E.2d 704 (1979). Request Number 22 reads: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I charge you that if two forces are actively operating,......
-
Wilbanks v. State, 65421
...and adequately covered elsewhere in the court's charge as a whole. Hand v. Hand, 244 Ga. 41, 257 S.E.2d 507 (1979); Watkins v. Davis, 152 Ga.App. 735, 263 S.E.2d 704 (1979). In the instant case the court had already fully instructed on this point. Moreover, the supplemental charge on reason......
-
Tri-Cities Hospital Authority v. Sheats
...Nat. Bank, 19 Ga.App. 817, 92 S.E. 285 (1917); Keith v. McLanahan, 147 Ga.App. 342, 249 S.E.2d 128 (1978); Watkins v. Davis, 152 Ga.App. 735, 736 (2), 263 S.E.2d 704 (1979). Compare Jones v. Smith, 206 Ga. 162, 165(8b), 56 S.E.2d 462 (1949). Thus an accurate characterization of the evidence......
-
LaPan v. State
...fail to give the instruction in the exact language of the request. Hand v. Hand, 244 Ga. 41, 257 S.E.2d 507 (1979); Watkins v. Davis, 152 Ga.App. 735, 263 S.E.2d 704 (1979). Moreover, there was no actual impeachment of any of the prosecution's witnesses regarding any material issue, as cont......