Case Name: Porter v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1890-12-23
Citations: 86 Ga. 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: Porter v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
Porter v. The State.
On the trial of an indictment for using abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace, it is competent to show in rebuttal to the prisoner’s statement (he having stated that he did not abuse the prosecutor, but that they met and parted friendly) that he used other abusive words on the occasion in addition to those alleged in the indictment, and the witness may recite the additional words so used.
December 23, 1890.
Abusive language. Criminal law. Evidence. Before Judge Lumpkin. Taliaferro superior court. February term, 1890.
Beported in the decision.
J. W. Hixon, for plaintiff in error,
W. M. Howard, solicitor-general, by J. H. Lumpkin. contra.

Opinion:
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
The indictment was under section 4372 of the code, and the words laid wei'e, "You. are a God damned old grey-headed son of a bitch." The evidence for the State established the speaking of these identical words. In his statement to the jury the prisoner said that he did not abuse prosecutor or use the language in the indictment, that they met friendly and parted friendly. In rebuttal to this statement the prosecutor was introduced and was allowed to testify that on the occasion in question the prisoner did curse and abuse him, said he swore a damned lie, go God damn you, etc. It was objected that no abusive language was admissible in evidence save that alleged in the indictment. This might be so if the-prisoner had not stated that he did not abuse the prosecutor, and that their interview was friendly. It ivas in rebuttal to this statement that the prosecutor was allowed to repeat what he said; and for the purpose of contradicting the statement, it was allowable not only to show that the prisoner did abuse the prosecutor, but to recite the language which he employed in so doing. There was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.