From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peek v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 8, 1965
141 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

Opinion

41165.

DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965.

Child molestation. Clayton Superior Court. Before Judge Banke.

Kemp Watson, John L. Watson, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Albert B. Wallace, Solicitor General, contra.


1. Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to admit in evidence in the present case the indictment and the verdict of a jury in a prior case in which the defendant was charged with the offense of sodomy and found guilty of an attempt, upon a child, which offense occurred 13 years prior to the trial of the present case in which the defendant was convicted of child molestation, it appears from the record in the present case that substantially the same evidence through the questions and answers of a witness on cross examination by the State was admitted in evidence without objection. Therefore, this ground furnishes no cause for a new trial, nor do the assignments of error based upon the charge of the court referring to such evidence. Camp v. State, 41 Ga. App. 459 (2) ( 153 S.E. 382); Fields v. State, 88 Ga. App. 770 (3) ( 77 S.E.2d 751).

2. The other grounds of the motion for new trial assigning error on a charge of the court are without merit, the evidence is ample to authorize the verdict, and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965.


Summaries of

Peek v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 8, 1965
141 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Case details for

Peek v. State

Case Details

Full title:PEEK v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 8, 1965

Citations

141 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
141 S.E.2d 602

Citing Cases

Rice v. State

Whether or not the admission of the evidence objected to . . . was erroneous, and we intimate no opinion upon…

Carroll v. State

Therefore, even if the admission of the testimony to which defendant objected was error, it was not harmful…