Haralson v. State, 216 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Haralson v. State, 216 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
71 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rowe v. State (ga, 2003-06-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rowe v. State
Ga. · 2003 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (2) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. State
Ga. · 2001 · confidence medium
Furthermore, we clarify and restrict the hearsay exception recognized in Haralson v. *788 State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975): In the absence of some other viable hearsay exception, such as “necessity” or “res gestae,” a law enforcement officer may not testify to a pre-trial identification of the accused unless the person who actually made the identification testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. 1.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Supra. 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gibson v. State
Ga. · 2000 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sims v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. 1 Brewton v. State, 266 Ga. 160 (1) ( 465 SE2d 668 ) (1996). 2 Hopkins v. State, 209 Ga. App. 376, 377 (1) ( 434 SE2d 74 ) (1993). 3 Compare Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 277 (92 SC 2726, 33 LE2d 346) (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring) (severe punishment is in part determined by “contemporary society”). 4 See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 5 OCGA §§ 16-5-20; 16-5-21. “ ‘Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is completed when a simple assault is committed by means of a deadly weapon,’ [cit.], an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ingram v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Pope, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. 1 White v. State, 268 Ga. 28, 29 (2) ( 486 SE2d 338 ) (1997). 2 Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Woodard v. State, 175 Ga. App. 449, 450 (3) ( 333 SE2d 645 ) (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Williams claims the trial court erred when it allowed an investigating officer to testify that the eyewitness identified Williams in a photographic lineup. 1 This issue is controlled adversely to Williams by Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975), which we have no authority to overrule despite Williams’s suggestion that we do so.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Igle v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
“This testimony was not subject to the objection that it is hearsay, and such enumeration is without merit. [Cit.]” Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ). (b) Detective King’s testimony, whereby she related the victim’s identification of the perpetrators by describing them to Detective King, was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKinney v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407-408 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Barker v. State, 144 Ga. App. 339 -340 (2) ( 241 SE2d 11 ) (1977). ‘The fact that some of the statements (might have been) in reply to questions of the (witness) would not render them inadmissible.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brinson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407-408 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Barker v. State, 144 Ga. App. 339 -340 (2) ( 241 SE2d 11 ) (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wade v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Even if we agree that Woodard should be overruled, we are not able tó overrule it because in Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406 ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975), the Georgia Supreme Court held that “[testimony by the police officer who conducted a line-up as to the identity of persons picked out of such line-up by other witnesses . . . was not subject to the objection that it was hearsay.” Id. at 408 (4).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Barriner v. State, 161 Ga. App. 59, 60 ( 289 SE2d 289 ) (1982). 3.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Price v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (2) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buffington v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Appellant enumerates as error the overruling of her objection to the State’s asking of leading questions of one of its witnesses during redirect examination. “ ‘The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit a party calling a witness to propound leading questions.’ [Cit.]” Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (1) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975). “ ‘A judge is given latitude and discretion in permitting leading questions, and unless there has been an abuse thereof, resulting in prejudice and injury, there is no reversible error. [Cits.]’ [Cits.]” English v. State, 234 Ga. 602…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamby v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Appellant enumerates as error the overruling of his objection to the state’s leading of the prosecutrix on her direct and redirect testimony. “ ‘The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit a party calling a witness to propound leading questions.’ [Cit.]” Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (1) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975). “ ‘A judge is given latitude and discretion in permitting leading questions, and unless there has been an abuse thereof, resulting in prejudice and injury, there is no reversible error. [Cits.]’ [Cits.]” English v. State, 234 Ga. 602, 603 (2) ( 216 …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ewald v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Code Ann. § 38-305; Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Hill v. State, 17 Ga. App. 294 (1) ( 86 SE 657 ) (1915); Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Whitley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 68, 69 (2) ( 223 SE2d 17 ) (1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joyner v. William J. Butler, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
See Code § 38-305; Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ). 3.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Whitley v. State (6×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
The majority opinion also cites Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407 ( 216 SE2d 304 ), but there the party directly involved — the one who was robbed — made the statement, and the question was propounded by one who arrived at the scene as the robbers were leaving.
discussed Cited "see" Tuten v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406 ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975). 19 Although we suggested in Neal that the Supreme Court should reconsider its decision in Haralson or at least “limit its application to cases in which the identifying witness is available for cross-examination,” we stated that we were “constrained to follow the rule.” 20 Tuten does not attempt to distinguish Haralson or Neal or suggest that they are not controlling in this case.
discussed Cited "see" Neal v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406 ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
discussed Cited "see" Nasworthy v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406 (3) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975); Lingo v. State, 226 Ga. 496 (3) ( 175 SE2d 657 ) (1970); Monday v. State, 32 Ga. 672 (3) ( 79 Am.
discussed Cited "see" Bruce v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975) and cit.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barriner v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 408 (4) ( 216 SE2d 304 ) (1975).
Haralson
v.
the State
29877.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 13, 1975.
216 S.E.2d 304
Jack Dorsey, for appellant., Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Julius C. Daugherty, Jr., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carter Goode, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Nichols.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
Nichols, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted in two separate multi-count indictments charging armed robbery. The first indictment contained six counts and the second three counts. He was convicted on the first two counts of the first indictment and on all three counts of the second[*407] indictment, and sentenced to ten years on each count, the sentences on each indictment running concurrently with the sentences on the second indictment to follow the sentences on the first. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction.

1. The first enumeration of error contends the court erred in permitting the state to ask a leading question of one of its witnesses. "The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit a party calling a witness to propound leading questions.” Butler v. State, 178 Ga. 700, 703 (173 SE 856). See also Code § 38-1706. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

2. The second enumeration of error contends the appellant was denied a thorough and sifting cross examination of the state’s witnesses, in violation of Code § 38-1705. All of the questions to which objections were sustained were either argumentative, a misstatement of the witnesses’ testimony or matters not within the witnesses’ knowledge and were properly excluded. See Harris v. Central Railroad, 78 Ga. 525, 534 (3 SE 355); Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 553, 556 (170 SE2d 281).

3. Error is enumerated upon the admission of alleged hearsay testimony relating to two of the armed robberies. In one instance a clerk in the store told a customer who arrived on the scene as the robbers were leaving, of the armed robbery, and the customer replied "They drove off in a Pontiac, kind of beige color.” In the other instance complained of, the testimony of the owner of the store where the robbery occurred was admitted over objection. The owner testified that he arrived at the scene immediately after the robbery, asked a clerk what had happened and the clerk responded "We was robbed.” The clerk also testified on direct examination the substantially same facts.

In Southern R. Co. v.Brown, 126 Ga. 1, 4 (54 SE 911), it was held: "In ascertaining [whether or not testimony comes within the res gestae] the time between the occurrence and the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, and the character of the statement itself are all matters to be considered. No arbitrary time can be fixed which will settle the question. No general rule can be laid down as to the circumstances.”

[*408] Submitted April 24, 1975 Decided May 13, 1975. Jack Dorsey, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Julius C. Daugherty, Jr., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carter Goode, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Here the events were all part of one continuous transaction and so closely connected in time as to be free of afterthought, were not of a self-serving nature and were admissible as part of the res gestae.

4. Error is also enumerated on the admission of testimony by the police officer who conducted a line-up as to the identity of persons picked out of such line-up by other witnesses. This testimony was not subject to the objection that it is hearsay, and such enumeration of error is without merit. Jackson v. State, 225 Ga. 39 (9) (165 SE2d 711).

5. The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial or the motion for directed verdict of acquittal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.