holding that the details of the prior robbery were properly admitted "to show the violent nature of the offense"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the details of the prior robbery were properly admitted "to show the violent nature of the offense"
- "[A]ny error in refusing to give the charge would have been harmless because there were far more significant reasons for the jury to reject certain of the witnesses's testimony other than for the reason that they were persons of 'bad character'. … The jury was also thoroughly and properly instructed on those other reasons. Thus, even had a correct charge been presented, any error would have been harmless."
- wherein the court determined that defense counsel could not attempt to impeach a State’s witness by an unrelated, specific bad act
- each raising on- direct appeal a trial court’s failure to sua sponte order a Pate hearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
On rehearing, the appellant again asserts that the jury should have been charged on robbery in the first degree and theft in the first and second degree. Although our original opinion sufficiently addresses this argument, in an abundance of caution, we reiterate that there was no rational basis for giving any of those charges. We note that in his statement to the police, the appellant denied shooting the victim and contended that someone else shot the victim. Furthermore, he stated that after the victim was shot, he and Terry Dill drove to an alley, jumped out of the car and ran away. He further stated that he did not see any money on the victim that day. A review of the record reveals that there was no reasonable basis in the evidence for a verdict convicting the appellant of any of the above-named offenses.
OPINION EXTENDED; MOTION DENIED; APPLICATION OVERRULED.
All the Judges concur.