122 Ga. App. 568 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1970
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for bastardy.
1. The first enumeration of error is addressed to the following portion of the trial court’s charge to the jury: "Now, gentlemen, I don’t envy you your task. It is not an easy one, and this is the question of determining the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. These are hard cases. It is a difficult question to make this determination which you are called upon to make, and all I can tell you is just do the best you can to try to come
Counsel for the appellant argues that this portion of the charge violated Code § 81-1104 which prohibits expressions of opinions by judges to the jury as to what has or has not been proved in a case. The thrust of the argument is that the instruction may have indicated to the jury that in the court’s opinion the matter before them had become very close on the evidence, whereas before hearing such expression the jury may well have been of the opinion that the State’s evidence was not of sufficient quality and quantity to have sustained its contention and to overcome the presumption of innocence and, much less, to have placed its case in the "beyond reasonable doubt” range required for a verdict of guilty.
We do not believe the charge was so intended nor do we think reasonable, intelligent jurors would have taken the remarks in such manner. On its face this portion of the charge favors neither side, and when it is reviewed together with the whole we are fully satisfied that it was correct as regards the applicable law, and further that the jury was impressed as to their particular duty and responsibility in the matter. See Frazier v. State, 93 Ga. App. 204 (91 SE2d 85), and cases cited. See also Butler v. State, 14 Ga. App. 446, 450 (81 SE 370); Weldon v. State, 21 Ga. App. 330 (If, g) (94 SE 326); Brannon v. State, 140 Ga. 787 (8) (80 SE 7).
2. The second and final enumeration is that the trial court erred in allowing the solicitor on initial direct examination of the prosecutrix to ask her whether she went to church, to which she answered "yes,” but that she was not a member of a church. Defense counsel objected on the ground that it was an improper question and was not relevant to the issue in the case, to wit, paternity. After a witness has testified as to facts, it is improper to introduce evidence intended to support his character for veracity until the adverse party first attacks the credibility of the witness for bad character. See Vernon v. State, 49 Ga. App. 187, 191 (174 SE 548), and citations. The general character and conduct of parties in other transactions are irrelevant matter unless the nature of the action involves such
We find no reversible error.
Judgment affirmed.