Laster v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Platt v. Nat. Gen. Ins. Co.

    205 Ga. App. 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 16 times

    In the latter situation a fair risk exists the jury will place undue emphasis on the statement being used in lieu of testimony merely because it accompanies them into the deliberation room for their reading at will. Transcripts, such as the one under review, which depend entirely for their value on the credibility of the maker and have been introduced solely for purposes of past recollection recorded are substantially equivalent in effect to interrogatories and depositions (compare Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 81 (2) ( 65 S.E.2d 158); Laster v. State, 163 Ga. App. 294, 295 (2) ( 293 S.E.2d 75)). "Such written testimony may have an unfair advantage over oral testimony by speaking to the jury more than once," and it is error to permit the jury to take such written testimony into the jury room.

  2. Brewton v. State

    329 S.E.2d 270 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 12 times

    In light of the foregoing, the better practice would be to interpose a timely objection to the initial admission of the written evidence on the specific ground that it should not go out with the jury. See Laster v. State, 163 Ga. App. 294 (2) ( 293 S.E.2d 75) (1982). Although appellant's failure to register his objection to the initial admission of the witness sheets may have constituted a waiver, in the interest of justice we have examined the merits of this enumeration.

  3. Haley v. Oaks Apartments, Ltd.

    173 Ga. App. 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 15 times

    4. The trial court committed prejudicial error in giving to the jury, as exhibits, certain pleadings and documents from other lawsuits, which appellees introduced allegedly for purposes of impeachment of general veracity of one of appellants' witnesses. Goins v. Glisson, 163 Ga. App. 290, 292-293 ( 292 S.E.2d 917); see also Laster v. State, 163 Ga. App. 294 ( 293 S.E.2d 75). Oral testimony concerning any such other lawsuits would be incompetent for impeachment purposes unless it contradicted the witness' testimony at trial (OCGA ยง 24-9-82; Hardeman v. MARTA, 157 Ga. App. 271 ( 277 S.E.2d 65)) and cannot be used merely to expose the witness' "intelligence, memory, accuracy, judgment and veracity," as appellee contends. Such personal qualities, or lack thereof, may be subject to cross-examination but not by the introduction of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence.

  4. Miller Distributing Co. v. Rollins

    163 Ga. App. 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    Finding no error in allowing complaint containing a withdrawn allegation to go out with the jury because the jury was instructed that the claim had been withdrawn

    Recent appellate decisions have apparently had the unfortunate result of blurring the distinction between the issue of the underlying admissibility of certain written evidence and the question of allowing that evidence to go out with the jury. See generally Thomason v. Genuine Parts Co., 156 Ga. App. 599 ( 275 S.E.2d 159) (1980); Kresge v. Thomas, 160 Ga. App. 219 (1) ( 286 S.E.2d 473) (1981); Goins v. Glisson, 163 Ga. App. 290 ( 292 S.E.2d 917) (1982); Laster v. State, 163 Ga. App. 294 ( 294 S.E.2d 75) (1982). Evidence "is the means by which any fact which is put in issue, is established or disproved."