Summary
In Language, we held that appellant's detailed explanations of his devotion to the church, wherein he explained in great detail his church activities so as to show how his finger came to be cut, "resulted in placing his character in issue."
Summary of this case from Anderson v. StateOpinion
67413.
DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1984.
Burglary. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Etheridge.
Frank B. Hester, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Margaret V. Lines, R. Andrew Weathers, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Defendant and another were jointly indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of burglary. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended, this defendant appeals. Held:
1. During his direct testimony the defendant offered his explanation as to his movements on the night in question in which the burglary took place and as to how he had injured a finger in a fight. He testified that he had left home about 6 o'clock on his way to the Shrine of the Black Madonna, the church he belongs to, being a black Christian nationalist organization, and that he stayed at the shrine until 11 o'clock. While he was on a street corner attempting to invite more people to attend the church, explaining in great detail that it was for the re-education of black people especially children, and inviting his brothers to attend, an intoxicated individual interfered, resulting in a fight, and he was cut on the hand with a knife. Thereafter, on cross-examination the assistant district attorney cross-examined him concerning whether or not he was a Christian, contending that defendant had put his character in issue and had opened the door for all evidence that bears on his character, such evidence was allowed, and the state also introduced convictions of other specific crimes. Defendant contends it was error to allow this testimony and the certified copies of his previous convictions should not have been allowed in evidence against him. Defendant contends that the general character of the defendant is irrelevant and inadmissible unless he chooses to put it in issue, citing Walker v. State, 86 Ga. App. 875 (1), 877 ( 72 S.E.2d 774); Askew v. State, 135 Ga. App. 56, 57 (1) ( 217 S.E.2d 385); Joiner v. State, 236 Ga. 580, 581 (2) ( 224 S.E.2d 414). He contends that his testimony was a specific account of his activities, movements and whereabouts, as well as an explanation of the injury to his left hand on the night in question and same was in support of a specific denial rather than a general declaration of his own character. See Johnson v. State, 186 Ga. 324 (4), 334 ( 197 S.E. 786); Jackson v. State, 204 Ga. 47 (2), 56 ( 48 S.E.2d 864); Smith v. State, 141 Ga. App. 64, 65-66 (2) ( 232 S.E.2d 401); Wiggins v. State, 80 Ga. App. 258 (2), 259-260 ( 55 S.E.2d 842). The state, however, contends that defendant's direct testimony about his church and his activities in the church served to put his good character in issue, citing Clark v. State, 52 Ga. App. 254 ( 183 S.E. 92); Connally v. State, 161 Ga. App. 519 ( 288 S.E.2d 863); Hyatt v. State, 116 Ga. App. 18 ( 156 S.E.2d 147); Shepherd v. State, 239 Ga. 28, 29-30 (2) ( 235 S.E.2d 533); Brown v. State, 237 Ga. 467, 468 ( 228 S.E.2d 853); Darden v. State, 236 Ga. 897 (2) ( 225 S.E.2d 904); Murray v. State, 157 Ga. App. 596 (1) ( 278 S.E.2d 2). While the above cases are much clearer as to opening the door with reference to one's character, nevertheless, here the defendant in explanation of his activities was seeking to show his devotion to his church, that is, seeking new members and his laudatory activities with reference to his church in re-education of black people, especially children, which resulted in placing his character in issue under the circumstances. We, therefore, find no merit in the complaint here wherein the trial court correctly permitted the state to introduce evidence of his prior convictions.
2. The remaining enumeration of error contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. After careful examination of this evidence and the record, we hold that a rational trier of fact (the jury in the case sub judice) could reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of burglary. See Kitchens v. State, 251 Ga. 36 (1) ( 302 S.E.2d 569); Camp v. State, 166 Ga. App. 208 ( 303 S.E.2d 540); Alexander v. State, 166 Ga. App. 233 (1) ( 303 S.E.2d 773).
Judgment affirmed. Shulman, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.