Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Hughes v. State

Hughes v. State

233 S.E.2d 872, 141 Ga. App. 506, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1965
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 4, 1977
Docket53570
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 233 S.E.2d 872 (Hughes 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
Hughes v. State, 233 S.E.2d 872, 141 Ga. App. 506, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1965 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

Duane P. Hughes was convicted of burglary and sentenced to twenty years to be served concurrently with any other sentence.

1. Hughes asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when a GBI agent testifying on rebuttal for the prosecution stated that *507 Hughes had admitted to burglarizing several locations not connected with the offense being tried. While such evidence is as a general rule inadmissible it may be admitted when the defendant himself has put his character in issue. Hodges v. State, 85 Ga. App. 617, 623 (2) (70 SE2d 48) (1952) and cits. Prior to the testimony objected to, Hughes testified extensively on direct examination as to other burglaries from which he returned the goods because he realized he had made a mistake, his "fencing” activities and his addiction to amphetamines. This enumeration is without merit. Scarcer v. State, 130 Ga. App. 297 (2) (202 SE2d 850) (1973); Willingham v. State, 134 Ga. App. 144, 145 (2) (213 SE2d 516) (1975).

Submitted March 2, 1977 Decided March 4, 1977. Leiden & Butler, L. Daniel Butler, for appellant. Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Evita A. Paschall, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The trial court likewise did not err in admitting certified copies of Hughes’ prior convictions for impeachment purposes after Hughes testified on direct examination, "I’m not a criminal . . . I’m not the type of person that goes out and burglarizes someone’s house.” Since he placed his character into evidence he was subject to impeachment as any other witness under the provisions of Code §§ 38-1802, 38-1803. Leverette v. State, 107 Ga. App. 712 (131 SE2d 782) (1963); Stack v. State, 234 Ga. 19, 25 (1d) (214 SE2d 514) (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

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

Related

Rautenberg v. State
342 S.E.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Davis v. State
313 S.E.2d 127 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Johnson v. State
311 S.E.2d 537 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Lehman v. State
299 S.E.2d 88 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
McDaniel v. State
283 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Mitchell v. State
281 S.E.2d 260 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Murray v. State
278 S.E.2d 2 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Lester v. State
244 S.E.2d 880 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 S.E.2d 872, 141 Ga. App. 506, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-gactapp-1977.