Bray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bray v. State

260 S.E.2d 383, 151 Ga. App. 428, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2558

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1979

Docket57768

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.E.2d 383 (Bray 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

Bray v. State, 260 S.E.2d 383, 151 Ga. App. 428, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2558 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Appellant asserts that his conviction for aggravated assault must be reversed because the trial court admitted, over objection, expert medical testimony based largely on hearsay. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

Appellant’s conviction arose out of a fight between appellant and one Gregg Griffeth. Griffeth testified that appellant swung at him while he stood with his hands in his pockets. As a result of this swing, Griffeth sustained a cut on his neck, approximately three inches long. Griffeth was taken to a health clinic for treatment. A medical assistant sewed up the wound and told Griffeth to return at a later time. On his return to the clinic, Griffeth was treated by Dr. Arthur M. Harwood. Dr. Harwood removed the old stitches and resutured the wound.

At trial, Dr. Harwood testified over objection that Griffeth’s cut had been made with a very sharp, knife-like object. Appellant contends this testimony was necessarily based upon hearsay because the prior treatment prevented Dr. Harwood from observing the wound in its original state and forced him to rely on the hearsay statements of the medical assistant who initially treated Griffeth. The record does not support this contention.

Dr. Harwood testified that on the basis of his observation of the wound, there was no indication that the wound had been enlarged or deepened. He further testified that, by removing the sutures, he was able to observe the wound as it was originally. Solely on the basis of his first hand observation, Dr. Harwood testified that, in his opinion, the wound was made with a knife-like object. Such testimony was not based upon hearsay. Code § 38-301; Eason v. Crews, 88 Ga. App. 602, 614 (77 SE2d 245) (1953).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J,, concur. Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney ,B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Smith, Judge.

Appellant asserts that his conviction for aggravated assault must be reversed because the trial court admitted, over objection, expert medical testimony based largely on hearsay. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

Appellant’s conviction arose out of a fight between appellant and one Gregg Griffeth. Griffeth testified that appellant swung at him while he stood with his hands in his pockets. As a result of this swing, Griffeth sustained a cut on his neck, approximately three inches long. Griffeth was taken to a health clinic for treatment. A medical assistant sewed up the wound and told Griffeth to return at a later time. On his return to the clinic, Griffeth was treated by Dr. Arthur M. Harwood. Dr. Harwood removed the old stitches and resutured the wound.

At trial, Dr. Harwood testified over objection that Griffeth’s cut had been made with a very sharp, knife-like object. Appellant contends this testimony was necessarily based upon hearsay because the prior treatment prevented Dr. Harwood from observing the wound in its original state and forced him to rely on the hearsay statements of the medical assistant who initially treated Griffeth. The record does not support this contention.

Dr. Harwood testified that on the basis of his observation of the wound, there was no indication that the wound had been enlarged or deepened. He further testified that, by removing the sutures, he was able to observe the wound as it was originally. Solely on the basis of his first hand observation, Dr. Harwood testified that, in his opinion, the wound was made with a knife-like object. Such testimony was not based upon hearsay. Code § 38-301; Eason v. Crews, 88 Ga. App. 602, 614 (77 SE2d 245) (1953).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J,, concur. Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney ,B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.E.2d 383, 151 Ga. App. 428, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-state-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack