Whitley v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Holmes v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth

    407 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    " Augusta Coach Co. v. Lee, 115 Ga. App. 511, 517 ( 154 S.E.2d 689) (1967). Compare Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975). "The hearsay statement[s] of the [unidentified witnesses], which [were] not part of the res gestae, [were] not admissible in a summary judgment proceeding.

  2. Freeman v. Lambert

    309 S.E.2d 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    See South Ga. Brokers v. Fidelity Bankers Life Ins. Co., 153 Ga. App. 503, 506 ( 265 S.E.2d 815) (1980); Camp v. Ledford, 103 Ga. App. 197, 199 ( 119 S.E.2d 54) (1961). Compare Atlanta Consol. St. R. Co. v. Bagwell, 107 Ga. 157 (5) ( 33 S.E. 191) (1899); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975) (in which evidence showed declarant was present or saw the incident prompting the statement or declaration). The trial court did not err in excluding the testimony.

  3. Moore v. State

    288 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    4. It was not error to admit, as a part of the res gestae, an exclamation which was made at the time when the fire was in progress, was attributed to a person shown to have been present, and was shown to be the product of the excitement of the moment. Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (4) ( 198 S.E.2d 387) (1973); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975). 5. After a thorough review of the entire record we are convinced that any rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. Cagle v. State

    287 S.E.2d 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    Consequently, the trial judge has discretion to control the scope and manner of cross examination and this discretion will not be curtailed absent some clear abuse." Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975). See also Mitchell v. State, 157 Ga. App. 146 (2) ( 276 S.E.2d 658) (1981).

  5. Gibson v. State

    160 Ga. App. 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    In Gibson, the subject of extrajudicial identification of a defendant is discussed in detail, and we noted that "it is not a settled question that testimony of an absent witness as to the identification of a defendant as the perpetrator is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted."

    This enumeration is without merit. Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68 (1) ( 223 S.E.2d 17); Crawford v. State, 154 Ga. App. 362 (2) ( 268 S.E.2d 414). 3. The defendant objected to the testimony of a police officer that he took a photographic lineup to the residence of one of the robbery victims and "[s]he picked the defendant out . . ."

  6. Anderson v. State

    265 S.E.2d 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 17 times
    In Anderson v. State, 153 Ga. App. 401 (4) (265 S.E.2d 299), on a claim that the charge on flight was burden-shifting, it was held that it was not, just as the charge on the unaccounted for recent possession of stolen goods was not burden-shifting. "`Although it places some duty on defendant to go forward with the evidence, it does not shift from the state the ultimate burden of persuading the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Cits.

    This testimony was admissible as part of the res gestae. Hill v. State, 17 Ga. App. 294 (1) ( 86 S.E. 657) (1915); Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 216 S.E.2d 304) (1975); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975). There was no error.

  7. Phillips v. State

    246 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    We do not view the curtailment of further exploration into this matter as an abuse of discretion of the trial court. See Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 ( 223 S.E.2d 17). 2.

  8. Redd v. State

    234 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 9 times

    It is the right of a witness to be protected from improper questions and from harsh or insulting demeanor (Code ยง 38-1704); however, "the trial judge has discretion to control the scope and manner of cross examination and this discretion will not be curtailed absent some clear abuse. Wanzer v. State, 232 Ga. 523 ( 207 S.E.2d 466); Davis v. State, 230 Ga. 902 ( 199 S.E.2d 779); Geiger v. State, 129 Ga. App. 488 ( 199 S.E.2d 861)." Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68 (1) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975). No such abuse appears here, where the defendant denied committing the offenses; attempted to establish an alibi for the date referred to in Count 2; testified on direct that he had been at a ski resort in North Carolina: yet testified on cross examination that he didn't know when he went to North Carolina or where he went, that he stayed in a cabin near a ski lodge, skied on the slopes for two weeks without ever going to the lodge, and met only two persons while there, neither of whom was called as a witness to substantiate the defendant's alibi.

  9. Piedmont Life Insurance v. Lea

    231 S.E.2d 147 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    It is not required that the res gestae statement be excluded solely because the declarant was not a party to this suit or because the declaration was not made between a witness and a party. See Piggly-Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Tucker, 139 Ga. App. 873 (3) (1976); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17) (1975); Jones v. State, 120 Ga. App. 295 (2) ( 170 S.E.2d 305) (1969). 2.

  10. Piggly-Wiggly Southern v. Tucker

    229 S.E.2d 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times
    Rejecting defendant's argument that a 7% figure be used because "since that time the General Assembly has established that a five percent figure be used"

    There are no grounds to support the defendant's contention that a hearsay statement made by a bystander to unidentified persons can never be admitted as part of the res gestae. Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 17); Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (4) ( 198 S.E.2d 387); Jones v. State, 120 Ga. App. 295 (2) ( 170 S.E.2d 305). Collins v. S. H. Kress Co., 114 Ga. App. 159 ( 150 S.E.2d 373), which is cited by the defendant in support of its contention, is not on point since it dealt with a hearsay statement made by an unidentified declarant. 4. The defendant's next enumerations of error pertain to the admission in evidence of various canceled checks and the witness Mrs. Blount's testimony regarding those checks.