Court Opinion

ID: 9580607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:06:45.694372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:23.677328
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant’s enumerations of error contend the trial court erred: (1) In allowing the prosecutrix to testify and give documents in support of an agreement entered into with the defendant for payment of child support in lieu of prosecution for the offense of bastardy. (2) In allowing testimony into evidence that a warrant alleging bastardy had previously issued against the defendant. (3) In refusing to grant the defendant a new trial.
1. Every appellant is required to assist the appellate courts by pointing to that place in the transcript or record where the matters to which his enumerations relate may be found under penalty of such enumeration receiving no consideration. See: Rule 18(a)(c) (Code Ann. § 24-3618); Bode v. Northeast Realty Co., 117 Ga. App. 226 (1) (160 SE2d 228); Askew v. State, 117 Ga. App. 647 (1)(161 SE2d 445); Hall v. State, 117 Ga. App. 649 (1) (161 SE2d 374). Here, appellant’s brief contends these matters are shown in the transcript at pages 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. We do not find this to be the case. Pages 2, 3, and 4 of transcript are as to objections to an affidavit attached to the accusation.
The enumeration of error does not reach this point, and even if it did, the objection comes too late. It should have been made at the time of trial, which was on December 13, 1973. See Code § 27-1501; Geer v. State, 58 Ga. App. 422 (198 SE 828); Peppers v. Balkcom, 218 Ga. 749 (2b) (130 SE2d 709); Jackson v. State, 112 Ga. App. 834 (1b) (146 SE2d 541); Birt v. State, 127 Ga. App. 532, 533 (194 SE2d 335). Further, the statute creating the Criminal Court of Fulton County authorizes prosecution upon an accusation supported by the prosecutor’s affidavit. See Ga. L. 1890-91, pp. 935, 937, Vol. 2.
Pages 5 and 6 of transcript relate to objections made to introduction of evidence at the arraignment — and not as to evidence offered at the trial before the jury.
Pages 7 and 8 of transcript relate to certain requests to charge the jury.
Thus it will be readily seen that the enumerations of *656error are not supported by the record or transcript, as pointed to by counsel for the appellant. Appellant thus has waived his right to have his enumerations of error considered.
2. The majority opinion urges that the judgment of the trial court be reversed, and contends that it was error to allow in evidence the earlier warrant for the same offense, by the same prosecutrix and for the same defendant. There is no way possible that this evidence could have damaged appellant.
3. The majority opinion urges that it was error, in connection with the above earlier warrant, to admit evidence as to defendant’s payment of lying-in expense and monthly expense for maintenance through April 19, 1973, when the warrant was withdrawn. There was no evidence to suggest that such payments were made upon condition that the warrant be withdrawn, or upon any other condition. The majority opinion cites two cases neither of which supports the majority’s position. First, the case of Smith v. State, 41 Ga. App. 341 (152 SE 916), was a liquor case, in which the well-known principle that confessions and admissions must be voluntary to be admissible is pronounced. Next, Simmons v. State, 98 Ga. App. 159 (2) (105 SE2d 356) relates to the introduction in evidence of payment by defendant of a sum of money to the prosecutrix in a bastardy case. This was held to be erroneous. But the error was because the payments were made in return for an agreement that the case would be dead-docketed (or not prosecuted). The evidence was in the nature of a compromise and prohibited by Code § 38-408. In the case sub judice, the payments were made without agreement of any kind.
The majority obviously overlooks a case that is squarely in point — and is contrary to the holding by the majority — to wit, Fowler v. State, 111 Ga. App. 856 (2), (143 SE2d 553) by Judges Eberhardt, Nichols and Pannell. It was there held that evidence as to an offer by defendant to give the prosecutrix (in a bastardy case) $200 for her hospital expense is not an offer in compromise where there was "no condition attached to the offer that, if accepted, to be in settlement of the defendant’s liability.” The Fowler case is controlling here, *657and it discusses and distinguishes the Simmons case, by stating that in the Simmons case there was a condition attached to the offer of payment.
I would therefore affirm the verdict and judgment of conviction, and I respectfully dissent from the opinion by the majority.