Defendant was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault in that he "did make an assault upon Horace Holcomb with a certain night stick, a deadly weapon.” The jury found defendant guilty of the lesser offense of simple battery, and the trial judge impоsed a sentence of twelve months imprisonment. After denial of his motion for a new trial, defendant brings this appeal. Held:
1. Although the gеneral grounds are raised in defendant’s motion for a new trial, this enumeration is neither argued nor supported by citation of аuthority in defendant’s brief to this court. This enumeration may therefore be considered abandoned under this court’s Rule 18 (c) (2) (Code Ann. § 24-3618 (c) (2)). The general grounds are, in any event, unmeritorious, as the testimony of the victim and the corroborative testimony of an eyеwitness presented more than sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.
2. Error is enumerated upon the trial court’s refusal to permit testimony regarding events which transpired subsequent to the alleged offense. Defendant’s assault charge was based upоn an altercation with the victim in the parking lot of a Rabun County tavern. Later that evening the victim and his brother shot and wounded defendant at the latter’s residence. The trial judge ruled that testimony regarding this latter occurrence was irrelevant to the issues bеing tried. Defense counsel objected to this ruling, asserting that the testimony would be admissible under the res gestae rule.
In support of this argument, appellant cites
Stiles v.
*230
State,
Code Ann. § 38-305 provides, "Declarations accompanying an act, or so nearly connected therewith in time as to be free from all suspicion of device or afterthought, shall be admissible in evidence as part of res gestae.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is readily apparent that "res gеstae” 2 is wholly unrelated to the victim’s subsequent conduct which defendant sought to prove before the jury. Generally, this phrase refers to oral declarations of a spontaneous nature which would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay evidence. 3 The *231 рropriety of the court’s ruling is therefore controlled by judicial considerations of relevancy.
"No precise and univеrsal test of the relevancy of testimony is furnished by the law. The question must be determined in each case according to the fаcts of that particular case, and in accordance with the teachings of reason and judicial experience. Any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or to disprove a material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant.”
McNabb v. State,
Sub judice, the state’s evidence showed that defendant committed an unprovoked assault and battery upon the victim. Defendant attempted to show justification by asserting that the victim was throwing rocks at him and that his actions were taken in self-defense. Thus the matеrial factual issues for the jury’s determination were clearly delineated. The victim’s subsequent aggression at defendant’s residenсe, whether motivated by a continued hostility between these two persons or by revenge for the prior beating, could not hаve had any bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case. See
Morgan v. State,
3. Error is enumerated upon the failure of the trial court to restrict the state’s rebuttal testimony. As this contention is not argued or supported by citation of authority, it is deemed abandoned. Code Ann. § 24-3618 (c) (2) (Rule 18 (c) (2)). Additionally, our examination of the transсript shows that the state’s rebuttal testimony was in fact restricted and that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in permitting rebuttal testimony within *232 reasonable bounds.
4. The remaining enumeration alleges error in the trial court’s failure to explain to the jury the bifurcated trial procedure then in force. Code Ann. § 27-2534 (Repealed by Ga. L. 1974, pp. 352, 355). In
McRoy v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Etymologists recognize "groggery” to be an Americаn corruption of the English words "grog shop” which now has become the sissified "cocktail lounge.”
The persistent confusion surrounding thе meaning of res gestae has prompted one commentator to vent his frustrations in the following language: "The marvelous capacity of a Latin phrase to serve as a substitute for reasoning, and the confusion of thought inevitably accomрanying the use of inaccurate terminology, are nowhere better illustrated than in the decisions dealing with the admissibility of evidence as 'res gestae.’ It is probable that this troublesome expression owes its existence and persistence in our law оf evidence to an inclination of judges and lawyers to avoid the toilsome exertion of exact analysis and preсise thinking.” Morgan, A Suggested Classification of Utterances Admissible as Res Gestae, 31 Yale L. J. 229 (1922).
McCormick identifies four types of declarations which may be admitted under the res gestae exception *231 to the hearsay rule: "(1) declarations of present bodily condition, (2) declarations of present mental states and emotions, (3) excited utterances, and (4) declarations of present sense impressions.” McCormick on Evidence, 2d Ed. (1972), § 288, p. 686.