Smith v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, C. J.
1. It is not error to allow a stenographic reporter, after refreshing his memory from notes taken at the time, to testify as to a statement made by the defendant on a former trial; and an objection based upon the ground that the notes had not been copied in longhand and submitted to counsel for approval was properly overruled. Moreover, since the defendant in a criminal case, in exercising his statutory right of making a statement to the jury, is not subject to cross-examination, necessarily the well-settled rule as to the necessity of directing the attention of a witness whom it is sought to impeach to previous statements alleged to have been made by him, which is referred to in Owen v. Palmour, 111 Ga. 885 ( 36 S. E. 969 ), and other cases cited in the briefs, has no application to a case in which there is an effort to show that a prior statement of the defendant materially differed from that made by him in the case at bar.
2. The credibility’of witnesses is a matter so entirely for the jury that the question as to whether a witness has or has not been successfully impeached is a matter for their exclusive determination.
3. The exceptions taken to the charge of the court are without merit.
4. There was evidence authorizing the jury to convict the defendant, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.