Fowler v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Jester v. State

    211 S.E.2d 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    " Simmons v. State, 98 Ga. App. 159, 161 ( 105 S.E.2d 356). Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856 (2) ( 143 S.E.2d 553), relied on by the dissent, does not require a different ruling. There was nothing in that case to indicate or imply a compromise or settlement situation.

  2. Blake v. State

    239 Ga. 292 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 58 times
    Affirming death sentence for murder of a child effected by her being thrown off a bridge

    Evidence which is material and competent is not to be excluded merely because it is prejudicial. Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856 ( 143 S.E.2d 553) (1965). Mrs. Blake's testimony was both material and competent to show the state of mind, plan and motive of the defendant.

  3. Hale v. State

    188 Ga. App. 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that, when the defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license and DUI, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's driving record to show that his license was suspended, even though the record revealed that the defendant had nine prior convictions, including two DUI convictions

    Without Hale's agreement to stipulate the DUI convictions, there was no recourse other than to admit the entire driving violations record to establish notice under OCGA ยง 40-5-70 (a). A mere showing of appellant's suspended status, without proof of the OCGA ยง 40-6-391 violations, would have been insufficient. "`Competent material evidence is not to be excluded merely because it is prejudicial.' [Cit.]" Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856, 859 (2) ( 143 S.E.2d 553) (1965). Accord Blake v. State, 239 Ga. 292 (1) ( 236 S.E.2d 637) (1977).

  4. Tatum v. State

    260 S.E.2d 747 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

    Appellant's motion for mistrial based on admission of this testimony was properly denied. Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856, 858 (2) ( 143 S.E.2d 553). There is nothing in this testimony to indicate or imply a compromise or settlement situation in violation of Code Ann. ยง 38-408. There was no condition attached to the stepfather's statements or to appellant's statement that he would "try to make some arrangements" that would, if accepted, be in settlement of his liability or in settlement of any proceeding against him. Fowler, supra; see Jester v. State, 133 Ga. App. 652, 653-654 ( 211 S.E.2d 909).

  5. White v. the Front Page, Inc.

    213 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times
    In White the plaintiff contended that the defendant's negligence consisted of "allowing the hole in the floor which caused plaintiff's fall to remain and not be repaired."

    See Wilson v. Wilder, 23 Ga. App. 30 ( 97 S.E. 447), where the defendant stated to the plaintiff that he had damaged the plaintiff's piano and he would pay $100 of the damages and the remainder after finding out what the full amount would be. This was held to constitute an admission. Accord, Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856, 858 ( 143 S.E.2d 553). While certain declarations by an agent may not be admissible against his principal, it is well settled that: "A corporation can only make admissions through its agents, and the admissions of such agents acting within the scope of their powers and about the business of their agency, are admissible."

  6. Jackson v. State

    112 Ga. App. 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    2. Where a motion for mistrial is made because of statements of opposing counsel and the trial judge instructs the jury to disregard the statements of counsel and overrules the motion for mistrial and the motion is not renewed after the court instructed the jury to disregard the statement, the ground is insufficient and presents no question to this court for decision. Cherry v. State, 220 Ga. 695 (5) ( 141 S.E.2d 412); Barnes v. State, 111 Ga. App. 348 (1) ( 141 S.E.2d 785); Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856 ( 143 S.E.2d 553). 3. Alleged errors in rulings on pleadings are not proper grounds of a motion for new trial.

  7. Commonwealth v. Kennedy

    450 N.E.2d 167 (Mass. 1983)   Cited 6 times
    In Kennedy, the form read in part "Do you wish to take the test, breath, blood or urine" and defendant was asked to circle one and check yes or no.

    Our discussion assumes, without deciding, that the parties could have made a settlement of the matter. See Harrison v. District of Columbia, 95 A.2d 332, 334 (D.C. 1953); Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856, 858 (1965); Commonwealth v. Terry, 275 Pa. Super. 184, 186-187 (1980). One might question, however, whether an agreement concerning support of a child could limit a father's obligation to support that child.