Williams v. State, 47186
| Decision Date | 15 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 47186,47186,3 |
| Parties | Harold WILLIAMS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harold Williams was convicted of robbery by force as defined in Code Ann. § 26-1901, received a sentence of 15 years in the penitentiary and he appeals from the judgment and sentence, enumerating as error (1) refusal of the court to permit defendant's counsel to cross-examine the victim of the robbery as to whether he had written a letter to the district attorney informing him that he did not wish to testify in the case, and (2) denial of a mistrial when the State tendered in evidence certified copies of convictions on four other robberies by the accused several years previously in another county. Held:
1. At common law it was a penal offense for any citizen having knowledge of the commission of a crime to fail to report it and assist in producing the evidence. Statute of Westminster the First, 3 Edw. I, c. IX, at 43; Statute of Westminster, 13 Edw. I, c. VI, at 114-115; Sheriffs Act of 1887, 50 & 51 Viet. c. 55, § 8(1); 4 Blackstone Commentaries, c. 21, 293-295; 2 Holdsworth, History of English Law (3d Ed.) 80-81, 101-102; 4 Ibid. at 521-522. Lord Bacon asserted in the Countess of Shrewsbury's case, 2 Howell's State Trials, 769, 788, that all subjects owed to the King their 'knowledge and discovery.' The first Congress took note of the matter, providing punishment for one who, having knowledge of the commission of a felony, concealed the matter and failed to report it, and the statute is still found in 18 U.S.C. § 4. And see Bratton v. United States, 10 Cir., 73 F.2d 795; United States v. Farrar, D.C., 38 F.2d 515; United States v. Norman, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 212. Under the law of this State one who has knowledge that a crime has been committed, fails to report it and harbors the criminal, or secretes the fruits of the crime, becomes an accessory after the fact. Moore v. State, 94 Ga.App. 210, 94 S.E.2d 80. While it is not an offense for the victim of a crime to express a desire not to appear and testify against the accused, our public policy places on him a duty to report the matter to proper officers and, upon a trial of the case, to appear and assist the State in revealing to the jury the truth of the matter in order that justice may be done.
It is the obligation and duty of every witness (unless there is danger of incriminating himself) to testify, revealing as best he knows or can the 'truth and the whole truth' of the matter in issue. They are sworn so to do.
(Emphasis supplied). Justice White, dissenting, in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246.
It is equally the duty of one having knowledge of the commission of a crime to appear and testify upon a trial of the case.
From the beginning of their existence both this court and the Supreme Court have opposed the fashioning of exclusionary rules that shut out facts which may assist the jury in arriving at the truth of the issue committed to them for trial. Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465. But this does not mean that evidence is to be admitted unless it has relevance to the issue to be tried, that is to say, unless in some way it tends to show the guilt or innocence of an accused as to the offense for which he is being tried. Code § 38-201. For example, testimony of the prosecutor that he had the accused arrested on suspicion is wholly irrelevant and is not to be admitted. Moughon v. State, 57 Ga. 102(8). Nor is it admissible to show that some person other than the accused has admitted that he committed the offense. Id., hn. 3. Counsel is not entitled to elicit from a prosecution witness what the solicitor general tried to get him to testify to. Kryder v. State, 57 Ga.App. 200, 194 S.E. 890. The expense of the prosecution in preparing and conducting the trial is an irrelevant matter. Campbell v. State, 81 Ga.App. 834, 60 S.E.2d 169. That the accused and the prosecutor may have, since the commission of the offense, 'made up' and become good friends, is irrelevant. Ogletree v. State, 18 Ga.App. 41, 88 S.E. 751. Matters of this kind do not, in any reasonable degree, tend to establish the probability, or lack thereof, of the issue in controversy. Alexander v. State, 7 Ga.App. 88, 66 S.E. 274. While the policy of the courts in the admission of evidence is one of liberality, yet there must be some ground rules by which a trial may be orderly conducted.
This is not to say that evidence which tends to show that the prosecution stems from some animus of the prosecutor is not to be admitted. Duncan v. State, 58 Ga.App. 551, 552, 199 S.E. 319. This might very well bear upon his credibility as a witness, though it would not otherwise affect the question of the defendant's guilt. If his credibility were attacked on that ground it would then be admissible for the State to show that the feelings of the witness toward the accused were good. Whitlow v. State, 74 Ga. 819.
It is within the province of the district attorney to assess the case and determine whether, in the public interest, a recommendation of nolle prosequi shall be made to the court. Code § 27-1801. If the prosecutor made a request upon the district attorney that the matter be discontinued, or that he be excused from testifying, it is presumed that the district attorney has, in the performance of his duty, determined that it is in the interest of the public that this not be done. That is not a matter with which the jury is concerned, nor is evidence thereof admissible. Every public official is presumed to perform the duties of his office in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casillas v. State, A98A0932.
...of the truth of the issue committed to their trial and decision." Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465, hn. 6 (1855). Accord Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302(1), 303, 190 S.E.2d 807. It is well settled that the victim's character, good or bad, is generally irrelevant and inadmissible in a murder t......
-
Camp v. Eichelkraut
...crime or criminal activity are made in the performance of a public duty and are privileged. [Cit.]"). 35. Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302(1), 190 S.E.2d 807 (1972). 36. Id. at 303(1), 190 S.E.2d 807. 37. Hardaway v. Sherman Enterprises, supra, 133 Ga.App. at 181, 210 S.E.2d 363. 38. 231 ......
-
Butler v. State, 41735
...lacked the authority to order the nolle prosequi of the charges against co-defendant Head. See OCGA § 17-8-3; Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302(1), 190 S.E.2d 807 (1972); Price v. Cobb, 60 Ga.App. 59, 61, 3 S.E.2d 131 (1939). (7) The enumerations of error addressed to the post-trial procee......
-
Hooper v. State, 72978
...293 S.E.2d 501 (1982). Evidence of animus of the prosecutor may very well bear on his credibility as a witness. Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302, 304(1), 190 S.E.2d 807 (1972). "The defendant should be allowed a wide latitude to fully cross-examine the upon these points [improper motives,......