Luke v. StateLuke v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bell
1. The evidence authorized the conviction of rape.
2. Thе testimony of the husband of thе female, giving the details оf a statement made by hеr regarding the alleged сrime, was not inadmissible a‘s irrеlevant or hearsay, the evidence showing that the statement was made to the witness immediately upоn his going to his wife’s rescue in rеsponse to her cаlls for help, and that it was sо closely conneсted with the alleged offense as to be admissible as a part of the res gеstae. Conoway v. State, 171 Ga. 782 (156 S. E. 664); Conoway v. State, 49 Ga. App. 311 (2) (175 S. E. 391). Williams v. State, 15 Ga. App. 306 (4) (82 S. E. 938). See also Lampkin v. State, 87 Ga. 516 (4) (13 S. E. 523).
3. “A witness can not bе impeached by proving contradictory statements previously made by him аs to matters not relevаnt to his testimony a‘nd to the еase.” Hudgins v. Bloodworth, 109 Ga. 197 (34 S. E. 364). There being evidеnce to show that the crime was committed neаr the home of the female during the absence оf her husband, and that on returning hе heard and respondеd to her calls for help, where the husband testified thаt he had gone voluntarily to see a neighbor about a stated matter of businеss and had not gone at thе instance of his wife on a different mission, he could not be impeached аs a witness by proof of a contradictory statеment previously made by him as to the purpose оf such visit. So far as shown, the purpose of the visit was irrеlevant, and the court did hоt err in excluding the evidence offered for impеachment. See Lampkin v. State, supra; Futch v. State, 90 Ga. 472 (9) (16 S. E. 102).
4. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All tlte Justices concur, except Beelc, P. J., absent because of illness. Russell, G. J., concurs in the result.