Hendrix v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hendrix v. State

187 S.E.2d 557, 125 Ga. App. 327, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1972

Docket46767

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 557 (Hendrix 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

Hendrix v. State, 187 S.E.2d 557, 125 Ga. App. 327, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

1. The mere statement by opposing counsel, "I object” without in any way pointing out for what reason the statement of the witness would be inadmissible, is insufficient to raise a question before the reviewing court *328 as to the impropriety of admitting the testimony. Touchstone v. State, 121 Ga. App. 602, 609 (174 SE2d 450). Further, where the witness is cross examined at length on the statement the admission of which is contended to be error, the objection would be waived in any event. Bartow County School Distr. v. Weaver, 121 Ga. App. 733 (3) (175 SE2d 78). It is better practice, however, for a police officer in explaining his reason for pursuing a suspect, which is admissible under Code § 38-302, to indicate generally the type of information upon which he was acting, being careful to avoid statements which would be subject to exception on the ground of hearsay.

Submitted January 5, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972. Wyatt & Wyatt, L. M. Wyatt, for appellant. Wilson P. Darden, Solicitor, for appellee.

2. There is no provision of law which makes it mandatory for the State to subject a person arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood in the absence of demand. Code Ann. § 68-1625.1.

The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

1. The mere statement by opposing counsel, "I object” without in any way pointing out for what reason the statement of the witness would be inadmissible, is insufficient to raise a question before the reviewing court *328 as to the impropriety of admitting the testimony. Touchstone v. State, 121 Ga. App. 602, 609 (174 SE2d 450). Further, where the witness is cross examined at length on the statement the admission of which is contended to be error, the objection would be waived in any event. Bartow County School Distr. v. Weaver, 121 Ga. App. 733 (3) (175 SE2d 78). It is better practice, however, for a police officer in explaining his reason for pursuing a suspect, which is admissible under Code § 38-302, to indicate generally the type of information upon which he was acting, being careful to avoid statements which would be subject to exception on the ground of hearsay.

Submitted January 5, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972. Wyatt & Wyatt, L. M. Wyatt, for appellant. Wilson P. Darden, Solicitor, for appellee.

2. There is no provision of law which makes it mandatory for the State to subject a person arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood in the absence of demand. Code Ann. § 68-1625.1.

The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 557, 125 Ga. App. 327, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrix-v-state-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack