Lindler v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lindler v. State

253 S.E.2d 833, 149 Ga. App. 155, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1979

Docket56886

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 253 S.E.2d 833 (Lindler 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

Lindler v. State, 253 S.E.2d 833, 149 Ga. App. 155, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of theft by taking. This appeal follows.

Although appellant’s brief contains several enumerations of error, we need consider only one enumeration which we find dispositive of this case. During the trial phase, evidence of prior convictions for possession of marijuana; carrying a pistol without a license and carrying a concealed weapon; and robbery by snatching was admitted over objection that defendant’s character was not in issue. Appellant’s assertion that the admission of these prior convictions constituted reversible error is well taken.

The state argues that introduction of prior convictions was properly allowed because defense counsel placed appellant’s character in issue. In support of this argument, the state cites defense counsel’s opening statement that the defendant is "not a burglar. . .not a thief,” and other testimony elicited by defense counsel to the effect that the accused had engaged in "fencing” operations. Pretermitting whether an accused’s character may be placed in issue by defense counsel’s opening argument, the statement in that argument was merely a specific denial of the crime charged and was insufficient to generally place the defendant’s character in issue. Smith v. State, 141 Ga. App. 64 (2) (232 SE2d 401). Evidence of the accused’s participation in other criminal activity tended to show bad character. It did not place good character in issue so as to authorize rebuttal. Carroll v. State, 143 Ga. App. 796 (2b) (240 SE2d 197). The admission of appellant’s prior convictions constituted *156 error requiring a new trial. Smith, supra; Carroll, supra; Lester v. State, 145 Ga. App. 847 (3) (244 SE2d 880).

Argued October 30, 1978 — Decided February 23, 1979. B. Keith Rollins, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Russell J. Parker, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of theft by taking. This appeal follows.

Although appellant’s brief contains several enumerations of error, we need consider only one enumeration which we find dispositive of this case. During the trial phase, evidence of prior convictions for possession of marijuana; carrying a pistol without a license and carrying a concealed weapon; and robbery by snatching was admitted over objection that defendant’s character was not in issue. Appellant’s assertion that the admission of these prior convictions constituted reversible error is well taken.

The state argues that introduction of prior convictions was properly allowed because defense counsel placed appellant’s character in issue. In support of this argument, the state cites defense counsel’s opening statement that the defendant is "not a burglar. . .not a thief,” and other testimony elicited by defense counsel to the effect that the accused had engaged in "fencing” operations. Pretermitting whether an accused’s character may be placed in issue by defense counsel’s opening argument, the statement in that argument was merely a specific denial of the crime charged and was insufficient to generally place the defendant’s character in issue. Smith v. State, 141 Ga. App. 64 (2) (232 SE2d 401). Evidence of the accused’s participation in other criminal activity tended to show bad character. It did not place good character in issue so as to authorize rebuttal. Carroll v. State, 143 Ga. App. 796 (2b) (240 SE2d 197). The admission of appellant’s prior convictions constituted *156 error requiring a new trial. Smith, supra; Carroll, supra; Lester v. State, 145 Ga. App. 847 (3) (244 SE2d 880).

Argued October 30, 1978 — Decided February 23, 1979. B. Keith Rollins, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Russell J. Parker, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 S.E.2d 833, 149 Ga. App. 155, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindler-v-state-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack