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

Porterfield v. State

257 S.E.2d 372, 150 Ga. App. 303, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2191
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 13, 1979
Docket57772
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 372 (Porterfield 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
Porterfield v. State, 257 S.E.2d 372, 150 Ga. App. 303, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2191 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Deen, Chief Judge.

Billy Ray Porterfield appeals from his conviction by a jury of tbe offense of solicitation of sodomy.

1. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit the results of a polygraph examination into evidence despite the express stipulation between the state and defense counsel that the results would be admissible when the results of such a test were inconclusive. In State v. *304 Chambers, 240 Ga. 76, 79 (239 SE2d 324) (1977), the Supreme Court held that upon express stipulation of the parties results of such a test are admissible and in that case were "... some evidence, though not direct evidence, of [the accused’s] guilt.” In the present case, the results were inconclusive, had no probative value whatsoever, and the trial court did not err in granting the state’s motion to exclude the test results despite the stipulation. See Hurd v. State, 125 Ga. App. 353 (187 SE2d 545) (1972).

Submitted May 7, 1979 Decided June 13, 1979. Robert D. Peckham, for appellant. Ken Stula, Solicitor, for appellee.

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial. The motion was based on the fact that the trial judge had contacted the polygraph operator to inform him of the trial time so he could plan his testing accordingly. The witness then volunteered that he wanted to run another test because the defendant had been taking sleeping pills and had not had much sleep. The witness corroborated the judge’s testimony. While it would have been better for the judge to have contacted the attorneys and asked them to inform the witness of the trial time, we do not find that the judge’s act was harmful to the defendant.

3. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit the testimony of defendant’s witness who was to testify about police harassment of the accused because the testimony was hearsay. "Testimony concerning information acquired solely through books and records kept by a third person is inadmissible, as hearsay.” Sabo v. Futch, 226 Ga. 352 (175 SE2d 16) (1970).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Carley, JJ., concur. Shulman, J., not participating.

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

Related

Lipscomb v. State
391 S.E.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Sisson v. State
353 S.E.2d 836 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Williams v. State
345 S.E.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Brown v. State
333 S.E.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Henley v. State
314 S.E.2d 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Camp v. State
303 S.E.2d 540 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Lawson v. State
292 S.E.2d 421 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Dowdy v. State
285 S.E.2d 764 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Jefferson v. State
285 S.E.2d 213 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 S.E.2d 372, 150 Ga. App. 303, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porterfield-v-state-gactapp-1979.