Watkins v. State, 28343
| Citation | 202 S.E.2d 442,231 Ga. 481 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28343,28343 |
| Parties | Charles WATKINS, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Webb, Fowler & Tanner, W. Howard Fowler, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Bryant Huff, Dist. Atty., Gary L. Davis, Dawson Jackson, Lawrenceville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Enumerated as error is that, 'The trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony of witness Cole concerning an out of court statement made by witness Cates.'
Cates was the alleged victim of the armed robbery. He testified at the trial and positively identified the appellant as the person who had robbed him by the use of a pistol. The witness Cole, a patrolman, thereafter testified in regard to his investigation of the robbery. He stated that Cates had made a complaint to him that he had been robbed. Cole was then asked if Cates had said by whom he was robbed, and Cole replied: 'During the course of the conversation, the names of Charles Watkins had come up and that was the first time I had heard of it.' Later Cole stated: '. . . and when I arrived, the name Charles Watkins was already in the conversation as being the . . .'
Code § 38-302 provides: 'When, in a legal investigation, information, conversations, letters and replies, and similar evidence are facts to explain conduct . . . they shall be admitted in evidence, not as hearsay, but as original evidence.' The testimony of this officer was properly admitted, over objection that it was hearsay, to explain the conduct of the officer in locating the alleged perpetrator of the robbery. Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686(14), 13 S.E.2d 820; Phillips v. State, 206 Ga. 418(3), 57 S.E.2d 555; Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283(3), 161 S.E.2d 302; Pitts v. State, 226 Ga. 878, 178 S.E.2d 177; Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829(3), 188 S.E.2d 512.
Furthermore, the testimony in regard to the statements of the victim could not have been harmful to the appellant, since the victim had already testified fully in regard to the robbery, and had positively identified the appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...appellant. Such testimony is admissible under Code Ann. § 38-302. Teal v. State, 234 Ga. 159, 214 S.E.2d 888 (1975); Watkins v. State, 231 Ga. 481, 202 S.E.2d 442 (1973). The trial court properly instructed the jury to consider the witness' testimony for the limited purpose for which it was......
-
Barrow v. State
...had said merely explained the conduct of the informer and of the witness and was admissible under Code § 38-302. Watkins v. State, 231 Ga. 481, 202 S.E.2d 442 (1973); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829(3), 188 S.E.2d 512 (1972); Pitts v. State, 226 Ga. 878, 178 S.E.2d 177 (1970); Jones v. State, ......
-
McAllister v. Brown
...Georgia cases illustrating the purpose of Georgia Code § 38-302 are Phillips v. State, 206 Ga. 418, 57 S.E.2d 555; Watkins v. State, 231 Ga. 481, 202 S.E.2d 442 (1973) and Pitts v. State, 226 Ga. 878, 178 S.E.2d 177 7 A case involving a tipster is illustrated in the case of McCray v. Illino......
-
Harrell v. State, 33021
...'to explain conduct' of the investigating officer, not as original evidence of the defendant's guilt." See also, Watkins v. State, 231 Ga. 481, 202 S.E.2d 442 (1973); Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829(3), 188 S.E.2d 512 (1972); Pitts v. State, 226 Ga. 878, 178 S.E.2d 177 (1970); Jones v. State, ......