Baker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Baker v. State

274 S.E.2d 678, 156 Ga. App. 283, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3033

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 28, 1980

Docket60861

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 678 (Baker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. State, 274 S.E.2d 678, 156 Ga. App. 283, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3033 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Chief Judge.

1. The opinions of experts, where relevant, are always admissible. Code § 38-1710. Whether the witness is in fact an expert in the subject on which he is being examined is a question for the court to decide, and that discretion will not be disturbed unless it has been manifestly abused. Braswell v. Owen of Ga., Inc., 128 Ga. App. 528, 532 (5) (197 SE2d 463) (1973); Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga. App. 399 (1-c) (233 SE2d 428) (1977).

2. The only objection to the conviction of the defendant on trial for the forgery of various checks is that the witness offered as an expert had not been qualified as such. He testified that he was a document examiner for the Georgia State Crime Laboratory, that he held an undergraduate degree in science, and a master’s degree of [284]*284forensic science from an accredited university, that he has dealt with questioned documents during the whole of the past two years in an on-the-job training program and had handled 75 or 80 cases a month, some with up to 200 documents per case, that he had also attended various seminars in the field, and is a member of a national forensic science organization. There is certainly nothing to indicate that the witness was not qualified, and the objection was properly overruled. Cf. Sims v. State, 40 Ga. App. 10 (2) (148 SE 769) (1929); Cooksey v. State, 149 Ga. App. 572 (3) (254 SE2d 892) (1979).

Submitted October 2, 1980 Decided October 28, 1980. Enoch Overby, for appellant. Charles Crawford, District Attorney, Mickey R. Thacker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

3. In addition to the testimony of the expert witness there were other witnesses who placed certain of the checks in the defendant’s possession during the time the forged signatures were added, and also both the forged checks and known handwriting of the defendant were in evidence and available to the jury for comparison and examination in the light of the expert testimony. No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deen, Chief Judge.

1. The opinions of experts, where relevant, are always admissible. Code § 38-1710. Whether the witness is in fact an expert in the subject on which he is being examined is a question for the court to decide, and that discretion will not be disturbed unless it has been manifestly abused. Braswell v. Owen of Ga., Inc., 128 Ga. App. 528, 532 (5) (197 SE2d 463) (1973); Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga. App. 399 (1-c) (233 SE2d 428) (1977).

2. The only objection to the conviction of the defendant on trial for the forgery of various checks is that the witness offered as an expert had not been qualified as such. He testified that he was a document examiner for the Georgia State Crime Laboratory, that he held an undergraduate degree in science, and a master’s degree of [284]*284forensic science from an accredited university, that he has dealt with questioned documents during the whole of the past two years in an on-the-job training program and had handled 75 or 80 cases a month, some with up to 200 documents per case, that he had also attended various seminars in the field, and is a member of a national forensic science organization. There is certainly nothing to indicate that the witness was not qualified, and the objection was properly overruled. Cf. Sims v. State, 40 Ga. App. 10 (2) (148 SE 769) (1929); Cooksey v. State, 149 Ga. App. 572 (3) (254 SE2d 892) (1979).

Submitted October 2, 1980 Decided October 28, 1980. Enoch Overby, for appellant. Charles Crawford, District Attorney, Mickey R. Thacker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

3. In addition to the testimony of the expert witness there were other witnesses who placed certain of the checks in the defendant’s possession during the time the forged signatures were added, and also both the forged checks and known handwriting of the defendant were in evidence and available to the jury for comparison and examination in the light of the expert testimony. No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 678, 156 Ga. App. 283, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack