Wheeler v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1,013.) |
| Parties | WHEELER. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Under an indictment charging the commission of a criminal offense, evidence is admissible to show that the crime was committed upon any date prior to the finding of the indictment within the statute of limitations. Where a defendant is charged with the unlawful sale of whisky generally, the sale not being alleged as made to any particular individual, proof may be submitted of any sales made by him in the jurisdiction of the court within two years prior to the date of the accusation.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Indictment and Information, §§ 273, 548.]
Proof that a witness has been convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor affords no ground for impeachment of the witness, and cannot be used to discredit his testimony. Only conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude serves as a basis for the impeachment, or can be held for a ground for discrediting the testimony of a witness who has been thus convicted, and the proper method of proving that a witness has been convicted of crime is by the record of his trial and conviction.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, §§ 1127, 1161, 1162.]
It is not error on the part of the court to confine the argument of counsel to such matters as are material to the issue, provided that, in ruling upon the question, neither the language nor the manner of the court is prejudicial to the rights of the client.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 1657.]
It was not error for the trial judge to instruct the jury in response to a question from one of the jury as to the effect of the jury's verdict upon a charge against witnesses in the case that, "it makes no difference to the jury whether witnesses were guilty of soliciting the sale of whisky or not, it is your duty to try this case and see if the defendant is guilty or not guilty under the evidence and the law given in charge." Nor was it error for the court to charge the jury that they had nothing to do with what some one else did or did not; that it had nothing to do with the case on trial; that it was for them to say whether the defendant in the case was guilty or not guilty.
The evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovinger v. State, (No. 19305.)
...into an agreement with the defendant and the witness to destroy the car in order to collect the insurance on it. In Wheeler v. State, 4 Ga. App. 325 (2), 61 S. E. 409, this language was used: "Only conviction of crime involving moral turpitude serves as a basis for impeaching, or can be hel......
-
Edenfield v. State
...one of those offenses involving moral turpitude, a witness cannot be impeached by proof that he has violated this law. Wheeler v. State, 4 Ga. App. 325, 61 S. E. 409. The court did not err in excluding testimony to the effect that a witness whom it was sought to impeach was considered a liq......