 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rupert v. State6/29/1999
overruled the objection and Zealpha responded that Rupert would be
A: "Drunk, laying on the floor, halfway out of the bed sometime. Rupert did not object to Zealpha's response, and the State continued to question her about his drinking, asking" Q: "Would he have bottles of alcohol at the house?" A: "All the time." Q: "What kind of alcohol was he drinking?" A: "Any kind. All kind." Q: "Was he drunk every day?" A: "Not drunk, drunk, but high drunk." Q: "Did he, to your knowledge, drink every day?" A: "Every day." Q: "When you were home on the two days that you were off [from work], describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what [Rupert] would do during that time that you were home?"
At this point, Rupert objected to the State's question, arguing that it went to his character. However, the question did not specifically refer to alcohol use. The trial court overruled the objection, stating that the prosecutor "can ask that." The State asked the question a second time and Zealpha responded that Rupert would
A: "Just lay around the house drunk." Q: "Would he drink in the morning?" A: "Morning to night. I get up, cut the grass, he still in the house laying out. Did all the work. He was in the house drinking." Q: "This - did this go on during the entirety of the 27 years you have been with [Rupert]?" A: "No. About the last, probably last five years." Q: "Last five years it's gotten worse?" A: "Got worse."
Rupert objected to the State's question on the grounds that it was leading, and the trial court sustained the objection.
Pretermitting whether the trial court erred in admitting this testimony, Rupert waived the error by failing to timely object. "It is well-settled in this state that it is too late to urge objections to the admission of evidence after it has been admitted without objection." Anthony v. State, Ga. App. (Case Number A98A1965, decided February 5, 1999). Although Rupert made one, belated objection to a question based on character, the objection was not made until after evidence of his drinking had been admitted without objection. Accordingly, Rupert has waived this objection. See Matthews v. State, 221 Ga. App. 129, 129-130 (1) (470 SE2d 518) (1996). To the extent that Rupert objected on grounds other than character, his objections do not preserve the character issue for appellate review. Howard v. State, 233 Ga. App. 724, 729 (5) (505 SE2d 768) (1998). "Because [Rupert] failed to specifically object to the evidence on the ground that it impermissibly placed his character in issue, he may not raise that objection for the first time on appeal." (Punctuation omitted.) Id.
(b) Rupert also contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the rebuttal testimony of his two children. After Rupert testified without objection that, prior to April 6, 1996, he did not have a problem with alcohol, did not drink excessively, and did not get drunk, the State called his two children, who testified that their father was drunk virtually every day from January through April 1996. Contrary to Rupert's contention, the trial court properly admitted this testimony to impeach Rupert's statements on direct and cross examination. Cook v. State, 226 Ga. App. 113, 115-116 (3) (485 SE2d 595) (1997).
2. In two enumerations of error, Rupert asserts that the trial court erred in allowing improper impeachment evidence and in failing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor attempted to impeach him by cross-examining him about a prior DUI conviction. Rupert objected to the State's line of questioning on this DUI conviction because it placed his character into evidence and because the State did not have a certified copy of the conv
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|