Weathers v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1905,A91A1905 |
| Citation | 202 Ga.App. 849,415 S.E.2d 690 |
| Parties | WEATHERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lavender & Lavender, Robert W. Lavender, Elberton, Michelle C. Feinberg, Watkinsville, for appellant.
Lindsay A. Tise, Jr., Dist. Atty., John H. Bailey, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
ARNOLD SHULMAN, Judge, Sitting by Designation.
The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and driving under the influence of alcohol. This appeal is from the denial of his motion for a new trial; the appellant seeks reversal of his conviction on the charge of aggravated assault.
The complaining witnesses, a woman and her minor daughter, testified that shortly after they entered onto northbound Interstate 85 at the Buford/Lawrenceville ramp to return from Atlanta to their home in Hartwell, Georgia, they observed and commented on an orange/brown truck with a white camper top also travelling north on the highway and at a speed noticeably slower than the other traffic. About 30 minutes later, after nightfall, a vehicle with its high beams illuminated began to follow the victims' car. In an effort to discourage that vehicle and escape the glare of the lights, the victim engaged in several maneuvers, including decelerating and passing, all to no avail. When she spotted the well-lighted exit at Commerce, she decided to exit there, but was struck from the rear when she slowed down to turn onto the ramp. The impact caused her to miss the exit, and both she and her daughter became frightened. The daughter, who turned around when their car was struck, told her mother that the vehicle that hit them was the truck with the camper they had noticed previously. The victim twice more tried to exit the highway and both times was struck by the pursuing vehicle, which at one point, with its headlights extinguished, pushed the victims' car along the road. During this period, the victim was blowing her horn and flashing her lights in an effort to summon help. Finally, she accelerated to approximately 98 miles per hour and exited when she saw a well-lighted service station on the opposite side of the interstate highway. However, she mistakenly turned left onto the entrance ramp to southbound Interstate 85 instead of the road which led to the station parking area. Almost immediately she realized the error, stopped her car, and rolled down the windows, and both she and her daughter began screaming for help. The daughter then saw that a truck with a camper top was behind them on the ramp and told her mother to "do something because he's behind us." The victim testified that the truck had stopped behind them and that the driver had gotten out and was walking toward their car. In an effort to evade the driver and get to the service station, she made a u-turn on the ramp and in doing so passed the driver. She testified that as she did so, she was able to observe him in the headlights of her car and to hear him say, "I thought...." Another truck driver who had been at the service station and had heard the victims' screams approached to offer assistance when he observed both vehicles on the southbound entrance ramp. As he did so, the driver of the camper truck turned around to go back to his truck. This witness testified that as the driver reached the door of his truck, he turned around to face the witness and instructed the witness to He then climbed into his truck and sped away. A description of the truck and tag number was given to the police. Approximately 20 minutes later, the appellant was apprehended by a sheriff's deputy and returned to the service station, where he and his truck were identified by the victims and the witness.
The appellant and his wife both testified that during the time the victims' car was being pursued and bumped they were driving to, repairing, and retrieving the appellant's wife's car which had become disabled on her return to their Mayesville home from a trip to South Carolina. That car had been left by the appellant's wife at a service station four exits north of the Mayesville exit on Interstate 85. They both testified that after the appellant worked on her car, she drove it back to their home and was followed by the appellant until he was apprehended by the police on southbound Interstate 85.
1. In his first enumeration of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of an alibi witness because that witness, having been sworn and instructed by the court to remain sequestered, instead remained present in the courtroom during an entire day's testimony. Although there have been conflicting cases regarding the competency to testify of witnesses who have violated the rule of sequestration, the Supreme Court has held that Jordan v. State, 247 Ga. 328, 347(10), 276 S.E.2d 224 (1981). Violation of the rule by any witness in a criminal trial goes to the issue of credibility, not admissibility, of the witness' testimony. O'Kelley v. State, 175 Ga.App. 503(1), 333 S.E.2d 838 (1985). Thus, it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of the appellant's witness, however, at the preliminary hearing, that witness testified only as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baynes v. State
...Arnold v. State, 155 Ga.App. 782 (272 SE2d 751) (1980); see Bates v. United States, 405 F2d 1104 (D.C.Cir.1968)." Weathers v. State, 202 Ga.App. 849, 851(2), 415 S.E.2d 690. In the case sub judice, the victim had only a brief interval to observe his attacker. The victim testified that after......
-
Jones v. State
...Jones' sole defense was alibi for the two TCBY robberies, under these facts that instruction was not required. Weathers v. State, 202 Ga.App. 849, 852(3), 415 S.E.2d 690 (1992). In cases where the defense of alibi and the question of identity are virtually the same defense, the omission by ......
-
Simmons v. State
...Arnold v. State, 155 Ga.App. 782, 272 S.E.2d 751 (1980); see Bates v. United States, 405 F.2d 1104 (D.C.Cir.1968)." Weathers v. State, 202 Ga.App. 849, 851(2), 415 S.E.2d 690. See also Hood v. State, 199 Ga.App. 774, 775-776, 406 S.E.2d 120, and Killens v. State, 184 Ga.App. 717, 720(3), 36......
-
Sapeu v. State, A96A1122
...in a criminal trial goes to the issue of credibility, not admissibility, of the witness' testimony. [Cit.]" Weathers v. State, 202 Ga.App. 849, 850(1), 415 S.E.2d 690 (1992). The record shows that Mrs. Sapeu was permitted to testify during the trial concerning the similar transaction offens......