Smith v. State

13 Citing cases

  1. Galvan v. State

    330 Ga. App. 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    A trial court's rulings concerning the scope of rebuttal testimony are subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748(1), 399 S.E.2d 66 (1991). Here, the former assistant district attorney's testimony regarding his conversations with the victim and her family in September 2009 was properly introduced to impeach the victim's recantation with her prior inconsistent statement to the attorney, and to impeach the testimony of the mother and sister that they and the victim had been ready to explain that the allegations had been fabricated, but had not been given an opportunity to do so.

  2. Smith v. State

    292 Ga. 620 (Ga. 2013)   Cited 21 times

    Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to permit the State to introduce testimony after the defendant has closed his evidence. Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746(1), 399 S.E.2d 66 (1991). Absent an abuse of that discretion, we will not reverse a decision to allow such testimony, even if it was not strictly in rebuttal.

  3. Cotton v. State

    274 Ga. 26 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    A rational trier of fact could have found Cotton guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560)(1979); Taylor v. State, 272 Ga. 559, 560 (1)( 532 S.E.2d 395)(2000); Dunn v. State, 263 Ga. 343 (1) ( 434 S.E.2d 60)(1993); Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (2) ( 399 S.E.2d 66)(1991). 2.

  4. Brown v. State

    685 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times

    ]" (Punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 SE2d 66) (1991). And given that the rebuttal evidence contradicted Brown's testimony, Brown has not shown that its admission would have been a "gross and palpable" breach of that discretion.

  5. Jones v. State

    527 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66) (1991). Valid results of a breath, blood, or urine test, which are otherwise determined to be inadmissible on procedural grounds, may be properly admitted for impeachment purposes.

  6. Thompson v. State

    237 Ga. App. 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that jury could conclude that items found in defendant's vehicle, including ski mask and gloves, were tools used in the commission of a crime

    As a general rule, a trial court has discretion whether to admit or exclude the testimony of rebuttal witnesses whose identities have not previously been revealed. See Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66) (1991; Gregg v. State, 216 Ga. App. 135, 136 ( 453 S.E.2d 499) (1995) (physical precedent only). Thompson has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing these three witnesses to testify as rebuttal witnesses for the state.

  7. Evans v. State

    484 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66) (1991). A trial court has discretion to allow relevant evidence during rebuttal even if such evidence tends to bolster the State's case more than to directly impeach defense evidence.

  8. Goodwin v. State

    474 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66). Evidence should be admitted if it is admissible for any legitimate purpose. Krebsbach v. State, 209 Ga. App. 474 ( 433 S.E.2d 649).

  9. Gregg v. State

    453 S.E.2d 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    (Emphasis supplied; punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66). "Under the facts of this case, `the trial court did not abuse its discretion in controlling the scope of rebuttal testimony.'" Id.; see Chezem v. State, 199 Ga. App. 869, 872 (3) ( 406 S.E.2d 522). The ruling of the trial court to allow the blood test to be admitted in rebuttal is entirely consistent with the statutorily recognized object of the rules of evidence, which is "the discovery of truth.

  10. James v. State

    209 Ga. App. 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    " '[W]hether the State should be permitted to introduce . . . evidence after the defendant has closed his testimony, even if it was not strictly in rebuttal, (is) a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court.' [Cit.]" Smith v. State, 260 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 399 S.E.2d 66) (1991). Having reviewed the facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting appellant's prior conviction as rebuttal evidence.