DocketNumber: 19997
Citation Numbers: 40 Ga. App. 546
Judges: Luke
Filed Date: 11/13/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Having been convicted of manufacturing whisky, Joe Brown excepted to the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
The following appears from the record : At the time and place charged in the indictment a county policeman and others found Watson Jackson and three negroes, including' the defendant, at a whisky still which was in operation at the time. Later the defendant stated to the officer that “Mr. Watson Jackson got him into it, hired him to help operate the still, and he was down there helping him.” An affidavit of the defendant was introduced in evidence, in
After counsel had objected to the introduction of the defendant’s affidavit for any other purpose than that of “impeaching” the'defendant, and after the court, by stating that the affidavit was relevant testimony, had in effect held the evidence admissible without limitation, counsel asked the court if “it would be relevant outside of impeachment.” By way of explaining his ruling the judge said, “Well, he said he was helping him.” The last clause of the affidavit is, “I was helping him when the officers came up.” A witness had testified that the defendant stated to him that “Mr. Jackson had him there helping him.”
In Croom v. State, 90 Ga. 430 (3) (17 S. E. 1003), the court said: “Generally, what the court says in stating to counsel the reason for denying a motion to exclude or rule out evidence is, if pertinent to the question raised by counsel, not error, although the reason given involve a statement as to certain testimony which is already in, or as to there being nothing in evidence showing that the circumstances are as the counsel claim.” In Hall v. State, 7 Ga. App. 115 (5) (66 S. E. 390), this court held: “The trial judge
. .Notwithstanding the defendant’s statement that he was at the still and was doing nothing “but standing right side of a barrel,” the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming, and the court properly overruled the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.