Willis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willis v. State

268 S.E.2d 673, 154 Ga. App. 164, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3230

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1980

Docket58884

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 S.E.2d 673 (Willis 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

Willis v. State, 268 S.E.2d 673, 154 Ga. App. 164, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3230 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s burglary conviction.

1. Appellant objected to the admission of a photograph of some of the items missing from the victim’s house following the burglary. Contrary to appellant’s contentions, the admission of the photograph was not reversible error. Any error that may have been committed in the admission of the photograph was necessarily harmless. The photograph was merely cumulative of the testimony of the victim and others concerning the missing items.

2. The arresting officer testified that "[t]he subjects were acting very suspicious ...” Appellant objected to this testimony on the ground that it was a conclusion.

The trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling the objection since the officer stated the facts on which his conclusion was based. He testified as follows: "They raked the items off the hood of the car. Two of the black males continued to lean on the car; one of the other black males approached the vehicle and started talking to me.” "The admission of testimony which was merely the conclusion of a witness could not have harmed the defendant; because there was ample legal evidence to sustain the inference of the witness.” Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Butler Marble &c. Co., 8 Ga. App. 1, 2 (68 SE 775) (1910). See also Salter v. State, 163 Ga. 80, 81 (135 SE 408) (1926).

3. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Smith, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s burglary conviction.

1. Appellant objected to the admission of a photograph of some of the items missing from the victim’s house following the burglary. Contrary to appellant’s contentions, the admission of the photograph was not reversible error. Any error that may have been committed in the admission of the photograph was necessarily harmless. The photograph was merely cumulative of the testimony of the victim and others concerning the missing items.

2. The arresting officer testified that "[t]he subjects were acting very suspicious ...” Appellant objected to this testimony on the ground that it was a conclusion.

The trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling the objection since the officer stated the facts on which his conclusion was based. He testified as follows: "They raked the items off the hood of the car. Two of the black males continued to lean on the car; one of the other black males approached the vehicle and started talking to me.” "The admission of testimony which was merely the conclusion of a witness could not have harmed the defendant; because there was ample legal evidence to sustain the inference of the witness.” Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Butler Marble &c. Co., 8 Ga. App. 1, 2 (68 SE 775) (1910). See also Salter v. State, 163 Ga. 80, 81 (135 SE 408) (1926).

3. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 S.E.2d 673, 154 Ga. App. 164, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

3. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack