Peterson v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Oliver v. State

    309 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    The evidence authorized the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant in the company of several others was in the unlawful possession of dynamite and exploded a stick thereof at the city hall and police station of the City of Woodstock, damaging said building, in violation of OCGA §§ 16-7-60 (Code Ann. § 26-1401) and 63 (Code Ann. § 26-1404). A fuller exposition of the facts is set out in our opinion in the case of a co-participant, Peterson v. State, 166 Ga. App. 719 ( 305 S.E.2d 447). Held: 1. Error is enumerated because the state was permitted to impeach its own witnesses, two co-participants in the offenses, by their prior inconsistent statements.

  2. Pryor v. State

    402 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times

    Moreover, it is no longer necessary to show surprise in order for a party to impeach his own witness. Peterson v. State, 166 Ga. App. 719 (1) ( 305 S.E.2d 447) (1983). "If, at the time of the questioning, a party has knowledge of a prior statement by one of his witnesses which contradicts testimony that witness has just given, that party has been sufficiently entrapped so that he may impeach his witness by use of the prior inconsistent statement."

  3. Davis v. State

    344 Md. 331 (Md. 1996)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that to inquire into the alibi witness's pretrial silence, the prosecutor need only establish "that the relationship between the witness and the defendant is such that the witness would have a natural tendency to disclose the exculpatory evidence he or she possessed to the proper authorities," leaving other factors for the defense to elicit if it so desires

    In fact, some of those courts hold that such impeachment is always appropriate. See e.g., Peterson v. State, 166 Ga. App. 719, 305 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1983) (the witness's failure to inform the authorities of facts which would have tended to absolve his roommate of any criminal wrongdoing was a proper subject for impeachment by the State during cross-examination.); People v. Outlaw, 75 Ill. App.3d 626, 31 Ill.Dec. 339, 353, 394 N.E.2d 541, 555 (1979) ("[A] prosecutor [is permitted] to inquire of witnesses as to whether they had told the same story previously in order to determine whether the testimony was recently fabricated.").

  4. STATE v. HAGA

    954 P.2d 1284 (Utah Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    Holding defendant is entitled to full restitution hearing when he requested it at sentencing

    Other cases have also validated the practice. See, e.g., Peterson v. State, 166 Ga. App. 719, 305 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1983); Williams v. State, 99 Md. App. 711, 639 A.2d 180, 184 (1994), aff'd, 344 Md. 358, 686 A.2d 1096 (1996); People v. Phillips, 217 Mich. App. 489, 552 N.W.2d 487, 490-91 (1996), appeal denied, ___ Mich. ___, 568 N.W.2d 683 (1997); People v. Colarco, 68 A.D.2d 430, 417 N.Y.S.2d 681, 682 (1979). A recent Kansas case, not cited by either party, examines the same issue.