Ridley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ridley v. State

217 S.E.2d 459, 135 Ga. App. 333, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1664

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 19, 1975

Docket50573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 S.E.2d 459 (Ridley 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

Ridley v. State, 217 S.E.2d 459, 135 Ga. App. 333, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

Stolz, Judge.

1. In the trial for the offense of motor vehicle theft (of a bulldozer), the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence over objection an "agreement” entered into between the [334]*334bulldozer owner, Renfroe, and the defendant’s father, E. D. Ridley, in which E. D. Ridley agreed to indemnify Renfroe for any loss or damage incurred by E. D. Ridley’s operation of the bulldozer on or about September 6,1974 (the date of the alleged offense) and stipulated that said operation was unlawful and unauthorized. E. D. Ridley was not a co-defendant in these proceedings. The defendant was not a party to ,the indemnity agreement. There was no evidence that E. D. Ridley was involved in the theft of the bulldozer. The indemnity agreement had absolutely no relevance to the issue being tried. It could serve only to prejudice. The defendant’s counsel’s objections to the exhibit and the testimony surrounding it, as to hearsay and lack of relevance, should have been sustained. The exhibit and the surrounding testimony were sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant as to require a new trial of the case.

Argued April 29, 1975 Decided June 19, 1975 Rehearing denied July 3, 1975 Little & Adams, Robert B. Adams, for appellant. Samuel J. Brantley, District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerated errors are without merit.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

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

Stolz, Judge.

1. In the trial for the offense of motor vehicle theft (of a bulldozer), the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence over objection an "agreement” entered into between the [334]*334bulldozer owner, Renfroe, and the defendant’s father, E. D. Ridley, in which E. D. Ridley agreed to indemnify Renfroe for any loss or damage incurred by E. D. Ridley’s operation of the bulldozer on or about September 6,1974 (the date of the alleged offense) and stipulated that said operation was unlawful and unauthorized. E. D. Ridley was not a co-defendant in these proceedings. The defendant was not a party to ,the indemnity agreement. There was no evidence that E. D. Ridley was involved in the theft of the bulldozer. The indemnity agreement had absolutely no relevance to the issue being tried. It could serve only to prejudice. The defendant’s counsel’s objections to the exhibit and the testimony surrounding it, as to hearsay and lack of relevance, should have been sustained. The exhibit and the surrounding testimony were sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant as to require a new trial of the case.

Argued April 29, 1975 Decided June 19, 1975 Rehearing denied July 3, 1975 Little & Adams, Robert B. Adams, for appellant. Samuel J. Brantley, District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerated errors are without merit.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 S.E.2d 459, 135 Ga. App. 333, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridley-v-state-gactapp-1975.

Opinions

2. The remaining enumerated errors are without merit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack