Hudson v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Bell v. State

    284 Ga. 790 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 35 times
    In Bell, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that an aggravated assault conviction merged with a murder conviction arising out of the same transaction or conduct.

    Johns v. State, 239 Ga. 681 (4) ( 238 SE2d 372) (1977). See also Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192 (4) ( 132 SE2d 508) (1963) (where the Court of Appeals set out a suggested charge and instructed trial courts charging a jury with reference to the credibility of the accused as a witness to "instruct them with reference to the method to be used in determining the credibility of all witnesses"). We have observed that "the contested instruction `made it plain that the defendant's testimony was not to be given different treatment' from that of the other witnesses [cit.] . . . [and] merely stated the self-evident fact of [the defendant's] interest in the outcome of the case.

  2. Hogan v. State

    142 S.E.2d 778 (Ga. 1965)   Cited 18 times

    The defendant's sworn testimony had the same evidentiary value as the testimony of any other witness. Code § 38-415, as amended, Ga. L. 1962, pp. 133, 134. Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508). It would have authorized, if believed by the jury, the defendant's acquittal on the theory of alibi, and was certainly sufficient to present an issue on that defense. Alibi was the defendant's sole defense and the trial judge erred in not charging on that subject.

  3. Poole v. State

    411 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    See Walker v. State, 132 Ga. App. 274, 278 (5) ( 208 S.E.2d 5) (1974). The trial court prefaced this instruction with the charge suggested in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508) (1963), to be given in cases where the defendant elects to testify. "Th[e] interest of a witness in the result of the matter on trial, whether civil or criminal in nature, or lack thereof, is a matter which the jury is always authorized to consider in passing upon his credibility."

  4. McWilliams v. State

    322 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    4. McWilliams contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury regarding the assessment of his credibility as a witness. The trial court's charge in this respect was virtually identical to the language approved by this court in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508) (1963); and such a charge has been consistently approved in subsequent cases. See, e.g., Johns v. State, 239 Ga. 681 (4) ( 238 S.E.2d 372) (1977); Arnold v. State, 139 Ga. App. 594 (1) ( 229 S.E.2d 77) (1976).

  5. Shields v. State

    248 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

    7. The court did not err in its charge concerning the credibility of witnesses, including the defendant who testified and who is interested in the results of the prosecution. Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508). See Johns v. State, 239 Ga. 681, 684 (4) ( 238 S.E.2d 372); Walker v. State, 132 Ga. App. 274, 278 (5) ( 208 S.E.2d 5); Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118, 119 (4) ( 240 S.E.2d 319).

  6. Arnold v. State

    139 Ga. App. 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    DEEN, Presiding Judge. 1. The instruction complained of in the first enumeration was approved in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508). To the same effect see Gainey v. State, 132 Ga. App. 870 (4) ( 209 S.E.2d 687); Walker v. State, 132 Ga. App. 274 (5) ( 208 S.E.2d 5); Jester v. State, 131 Ga. App. 269 (2) ( 205 S.E.2d 444).

  7. Walker v. State

    132 Ga. App. 274 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 25 times

    " Williams v. State, 223 Ga. 773, 775 (4) ( 158 S.E.2d 373). Accord, Hogan v. State, 221 Ga. 9, 12 ( 142 S.E.2d 778). "[W]hen [the accused] does so testify [he] at once becomes the same as any other witness, and [his] credibility is to be tested by and subjected to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness; and in determining the degree of credibility that shall be accorded to [his] testimony the jury have a right to take into consideration the fact that [he] is interested in the result of the prosecution, as well as [his] demeanor and conduct upon the witness stand ..." Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 (4) ( 132 S.E.2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395), cited approvingly in Hogan v. State, 221 Ga. 9, 12, supra, and in Mitchell v. State, 121 Ga. App. 382 ( 173 S.E.2d 709). This interest of a witness in the result of the matter on trial, whether civil or criminal in nature, or lack thereof, is a matter which the jury is always authorized to consider in passing upon his credibility ( Detwiler v. Cox, 120 Ga. 638 ( 48 S.E. 142); Zetterower v. State, 87 Ga. App. 24 ( 73 S.E.2d 88)), and it is especially true where the witness is himself a party to the cause.

  8. Jester v. State

    205 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 7 times

    In view of this it would seem the better practice would be not to single out the defendant for special attention as to the weight and credibility of his sworn testimony. In the event the trial judge had charged as to the credibility of the accused a suggested charge was stated in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192 ( 132 S.E.2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395). However, nothing stated in the Hudson case was authority for the position that the court should have given such an instruction.

  9. Anderson v. State

    198 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 12 times

    1. "If the sentence of the court is within the limits prescribed by law for the offense charged, this court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence or the court's refusal to reduce it." Bowman v. State, 91 Ga. App. 52 (2) ( 86 S.E.2d 66) and cits. The appellant's 7-months prison sentence for the misdemeanor of simple battery was within the limits fixed by law and this court cannot say that it is unjust, extreme, or oppressive. Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 200 ( 132 S.E.2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395). 2.

  10. Johnson v. State

    197 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    Timmons v. State, 223 Ga. 450 ( 156 S.E.2d 68). 3. Defendant's contention that the charge concerning the credibility of his testimony was error is without merit. It was nearly identical to the one approved by this court in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 ( 132 S.E.2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395). 4. He also enumerates as error a portion of the charge on the form of the verdict, contending it would cause the jury to believe they must have a reasonable doubt on all counts in order to acquit on any. First of all, that portion was lifted out of context.