testimony elicited defense in Georgia

2015The trial court found that the testimony elicited by defense counsel that Robinson had made many complaints against the police in the past “opened the door” to the State’s admission of his prior arrests for stealing cars from the Atlanta Police Department, reasoning that his testimony gave “the impression that all of those complaints were related [to the instant case] when that’s not necessarily the case.” Accordingly, the trial court allowed the State to ask if Robinson had been arrested and charged with stealing cars from the Atlanta Police Department, to which Robinson said, “Yes.” “The tri

2015The trial court found that the testimony elicited by defense counsel that Robinson had made many complaints against the police in the past “opened the door” to the State’s admission of his prior arrests for stealing cars from the Atlanta Police Department, reasoning that his testimony gave “the impression that all of those complaints were related [to the instant case] when that’s not necessarily the case.” Accordingly, the trial court allowed the State to ask if Robinson had been arrested and charged with stealing cars from the Atlanta Police Department, to which Robinson said, “Yes.” “The tri

2015“Evidence that is relevant and material to an issue in the case is not made inadmissible because it incidentally places the defendant’s character in issue.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mayberry v. State, 301 Ga. App. 503, 506 (2) ( 687 SE2d 893 ) (2009). *244 Here, however, the State does not argue and the trial court did not hold that Robinson placed his character into issue, but rather that the evidence is admissible to fully explain that not all of Robinson’s “seven or eight” prior complaints against the Atlanta Police Department stemmed from his arrest for the crimes in the instant

2015“Evidence that is relevant and material to an issue in the case is not made inadmissible because it incidentally places the defendant’s character in issue.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mayberry v. State, 301 Ga. App. 503, 506 (2) ( 687 SE2d 893 ) (2009). *244 Here, however, the State does not argue and the trial court did not hold that Robinson placed his character into issue, but rather that the evidence is admissible to fully explain that not all of Robinson’s “seven or eight” prior complaints against the Atlanta Police Department stemmed from his arrest for the crimes in the instant

2022There is no bright-line rule regarding how close in time evidence must be to the charged offenses, or requiring evidence to pertain directly to the victims of the charged offenses, for that evidence to be admitted properly as intrinsic evidence. 63 The trial court also stated that this evidence was admissible to impeach by contradiction the testimony elicited by the defense on cross- examination portraying McIver as a grieving husband and “the consummate Southern gentleman who’s polite to everyone . . . . [and] just an all around super good guy.” But a character trait may be proved or rebutted

2022There is no bright-line rule regarding how close in time evidence must be to the charged offenses, or requiring evidence to pertain directly to the victims of the charged offenses, for that evidence to be admitted properly as intrinsic evidence. 63 The trial court also stated that this evidence was admissible to impeach by contradiction the testimony elicited by the defense on cross- examination portraying McIver as a grieving husband and “the consummate Southern gentleman who’s polite to everyone . . . . [and] just an all around super good guy.” But a character trait may be proved or rebutted

2022Dr. Sellers’ testimony as to a single instance of conduct on McIver’s part did not fall within this rule. 93 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hughes v. State, 312 Ga. 149, 152 (1) (861 SE2d 94) (2021).

2022(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hughes v. State, 312 Ga. 149 , 63 The trial court also stated that this evidence was admissible to impeach by contradiction the testimony elicited by the defense on cross- examination portraying McIver as a grieving husband and “the consummate Southern gentleman who’s polite to everyone . . . [and] just an all around super good guy.” But a character trait may be proved or rebutted only by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion, unless the character trait “is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense or when an accused testifies to

2014This testimony elicited by the defense allowed the state to inquire further about the threats because “a defendant may not seek to exclude further details concerning the same area of inquiry he introduced.” Cantera v. State, 304 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 696 SE2d 354 ) (2010) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2014This testimony elicited by the defense allowed the state to inquire further about the threats because “a defendant may not seek to exclude further details concerning the same area of inquiry he introduced.” Cantera v. State, 304 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 696 SE2d 354 ) (2010) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2014Indeed, “where, as here, a *279 defendant opens the door to [a] line of questioning..., the prosecution has every right to pursue a thorough and sifting examination[.]” Doyle v. State, 291 Ga. 729, 733 (3) ( 733 SE2d 290 ) (2012) (citation omitted).

2014Indeed, “where, as here, a *279 defendant opens the door to [a] line of questioning..., the prosecution has every right to pursue a thorough and sifting examination[.]” Doyle v. State, 291 Ga. 729, 733 (3) ( 733 SE2d 290 ) (2012) (citation omitted).

1998See Johnson, supra, 264 Ga. at 458 (5); Redding v. State, 219 Ga. App. 182, 186 (4) ( 464 SE2d 824 ) (1995).

1998See Johnson, supra, 264 Ga. at 458 (5); Redding v. State, 219 Ga. App. 182, 186 (4) ( 464 SE2d 824 ) (1995).

1998See Johnson, supra, 264 Ga. at 458 (5); Redding v. State, 219 Ga. App. 182, 186 (4) ( 464 SE2d 824 ) (1995).

1984See Holloway v. State, 164 Ga. App. 589 , supra; Drake v. State, 245 Ga. 798 , supra; Terry v. State, 165 Ga. App. 344 (2) ( 301 SE2d 291 ); Beard v. State, 153 Ga. App. 550, 551 (2) ( 265 SE2d 875 ).

1984See Holloway v. State, 164 Ga. App. 589 , supra; Drake v. State, 245 Ga. 798 , supra; Terry v. State, 165 Ga. App. 344 (2) ( 301 SE2d 291 ); Beard v. State, 153 Ga. App. 550, 551 (2) ( 265 SE2d 875 ).

1984See Holloway v. State, 164 Ga. App. 589 , supra; Drake v. State, 245 Ga. 798 , supra; Terry v. State, 165 Ga. App. 344 (2) ( 301 SE2d 291 ); Beard v. State, 153 Ga. App. 550, 551 (2) ( 265 SE2d 875 ).