Hurston v. The State., 194 Ga. App. 226, 390 S.E.2d 119 (1990)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.
Text
James W. Studdard, for appellant.
Hurston appeals his conviction and sentence as a recidivist, OCGA
The evidence construed so as to uphold the verdict, Thomas v. State,
Another reason is that testimony is considered hearsay only if the witness is testifying to another party's statement in order to prove or demonstrate the truth of that statement. See Fugitt v. State,
However, "[n]o matter how competent evidence might be, a new trial will not be granted merely because evidence has been excluded. It must appear that the excluded testimony was material and the substance of what the material evidence is must be called to the attention of the trial court at the time of the exclusion. It is not sufficient in an appellate brief to call attention to error. The error, if any, must have been committed at trial and the ruling must have been made, not on a question only, but in light of the facts about which the witness would have testified. [Cits.]" Cooper v. State,
Assuming Hurston's failure to make a proffer of evidence does not preclude review of the matter, Hurston failed to demonstrate how he was harmed by the exclusion, especially in light of the fact that his brother later testified about the conversation in the car. See Evans v. State,
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Tracy G. Gladden, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - FUGITT v. THE STATE., 256 Ga. 292, 348 S.E.2.d 451 (1986)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - MOORE et al. v. THE STATE., 240 Ga. 210, 240 S.E.2.d 68
- Supreme Court of Georgia - SALEM v. THE STATE., 228 Ga. 186, 184 S.E.2.d 650 (1971)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
