Bowles v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowles v. State

272 S.E.2d 595, 155 Ga. App. 753, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2776

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1980

Docket60279

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 272 S.E.2d 595 (Bowles 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

Bowles v. State, 272 S.E.2d 595, 155 Ga. App. 753, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2776 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Bowles was convicted of burglary. During the course of the trial the voluntariness of statements made by appellant was placed in issue, and on cross-examination he was asked if he had “ever been advised of your [Miranda] rights before?” Appellant answered affirmatively, and when asked how many times, said he was not sure. Appellant then moved for a mistrial on the ground that his character had been placed in issue. The motion was denied and appellant contends this ruling was error.

The question on cross-examination was propounded to attack the credibility of appellant’s testimony that he did not understand his rights. This was a relevant, material question and this court has held that “[w]here evidence is relevant and material, it is not [754]*754objectionable merely .. . because its effect is incidentally to put the defendant’s character in issue. [Cits.]” Bennefield v. State, 86 Ga. App. 285, 288 (71 SE2d 760) (1952); McGregor v. State, 119 Ga. App. 40, 41 (1) (165 SE2d 915) (1969). Thus, even if the question incidentally put appellant’s character in issue it was not error for the trial judge to allow the question and answer.

Submitted July 8, 1980 Decided September 18, 1980. Arthur K. Steinberg, for appellant. Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Bowles was convicted of burglary. During the course of the trial the voluntariness of statements made by appellant was placed in issue, and on cross-examination he was asked if he had “ever been advised of your [Miranda] rights before?” Appellant answered affirmatively, and when asked how many times, said he was not sure. Appellant then moved for a mistrial on the ground that his character had been placed in issue. The motion was denied and appellant contends this ruling was error.

The question on cross-examination was propounded to attack the credibility of appellant’s testimony that he did not understand his rights. This was a relevant, material question and this court has held that “[w]here evidence is relevant and material, it is not [754]*754objectionable merely .. . because its effect is incidentally to put the defendant’s character in issue. [Cits.]” Bennefield v. State, 86 Ga. App. 285, 288 (71 SE2d 760) (1952); McGregor v. State, 119 Ga. App. 40, 41 (1) (165 SE2d 915) (1969). Thus, even if the question incidentally put appellant’s character in issue it was not error for the trial judge to allow the question and answer.

Submitted July 8, 1980 Decided September 18, 1980. Arthur K. Steinberg, for appellant. Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.E.2d 595, 155 Ga. App. 753, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack