Corbitt v. StateCorbitt v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Beasley
Defendant appeals his convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol,
1. Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of a similar transaction because the evidence, a nolo, contendere plea, was inadmissible under
While we have permitted the admission of such a plea in a civil case for impeachment purposes, Tilley v. Page, 181 Ga. App. 98, 100 (351 SE2d 464) (1986), we have not done so in a criminal case, and the purpose here was not impeachment. Allowing the State to introduce the plea as evidence of a prior similar crime is exactly what the code section was designed to prevent. See Fortson v. Hopper, 242 Ga. 81, 83 (247 SE2d 875) (1978). As in Beal v. Braunecker, 185 Ga. App. 429, 432 (2) (364 SE2d 308) (1987), we are not persuaded “that we should ignore the plain language” of the code.
2. Defendant’s first enumeration of error asserts a violation of
Judgment reversed.
Banke, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.