WALKER v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

A02A2271.

Attorney(S)

Michael E. Garner, for appellant. J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Alonza Whitaker, Assitant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judges

Herbert E. Phipps

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

A jury found William S. Walker guilty of voluntary manslaughter, theft by taking a motor vehicle, and armed robbery in Muscogee Superior Court. During trial, Walker admitted to striking the victim, V. P., claiming self-defense because the victim attacked him with a knife. Walker also admitted taking the victim's ATM card and attempting to use it. Walker's counsel, during opening statements, portrayed Walker as having no prior trouble with the law, contrasting him with the victim who had multiple felony convictions. The State sought to introduce Walker's prior third degree assault conviction to impeach his testimony that he had never been in trouble before. The trial court allowed the conviction into evidence over Walker's objection. Walker appealed, contending that the admission of his prior conviction improperly placed his character into issue.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in admitting Walker's prior assault conviction to impeach his testimony despite his claim that he had never been in trouble before.
Whether Walker's statement that he had never been in trouble constituted putting his character in issue under OCGA § 24-9-20(b), thereby permitting introduction of prior convictions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Walker argued that his statement "I've never been in trouble before" did not put his character into issue under OCGA § 24-9-20(b), and thus the prior assault conviction should not have been admitted.
He contended that such a statement was not a deliberate opening of his character to impeachment but rather an inadvertent remark not sufficient to "open the door" for prior convictions.

Appellee's Arguments

The State maintained that Walker's testimony denying prior trouble was subject to impeachment by his prior conviction to show the falsity of that specific testimony.
The State argued that regardless of whether Walker formally put his character in issue, the conviction was admissible to impeach his credibility because he testified falsely about his past conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753 (1988)	Defendant does not put character in issue by inadvertent statements regarding good conduct.	Used to explain that a vague statement about having "never been in trouble" does not necessarily open character for impeachment.
Richardson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 695 (1985)	Reference to defendant's past trouble does not place character in issue due to ambiguity of such remarks.	Supported the principle that such statements alone do not automatically permit introduction of prior convictions.
Parker v. State, 169 Ga. App. 557 (1984)	State may impeach defendant's testimony by disproving specific false testimony without defendant placing character in issue.	Justified admission of prior conviction to rebut false testimony denying prior bad conduct.
Williams v. State, 171 Ga. App. 927 (1984)	Prior arrests admissible for impeachment though defendant has not placed character in issue.	Analogous factual situation; affirmed admission of prior arrests to impeach defendant's testimony denying prior trouble.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that OCGA § 24-9-20(b) prohibits evidence of prior convictions unless the defendant puts character in issue. However, the court found that Walker's denial of prior trouble was not an inadvertent remark but a deliberate assertion made during his testimony and supported by counsel's opening statement portraying Walker as unblemished. This deliberate denial was subject to impeachment to show its falsity. The court relied on established precedent that allows the State to introduce evidence of prior convictions to impeach specific false testimony without the defendant having formally placed character in issue. The court analogized the case to Williams v. State, where similar circumstances justified admission of prior arrests for impeachment. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting Walker's prior assault conviction to impeach his testimony denying prior trouble.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed.

The court upheld the trial court's decision allowing the State to introduce Walker's prior assault conviction for impeachment purposes. This ruling confirms that a defendant's deliberate false denial of prior criminal conduct during testimony can open the door to impeachment by prior convictions, even if the defendant has not otherwise placed character in issue under OCGA § 24-9-20(b). The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the conviction and does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing rules on impeachment and character evidence.

Show full summary ...

WALKER v. THE STATE.

PHIPPS, Judge.

A jury found William S. Walker guilty of voluntary manslaughter, theft by taking a motor vehicle, and armed robbery. Walker contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce his previous assault conviction because it improperly put his character into issue. We disagree because the conviction was properly admissible to impeach Walker's testimony.

During direct testimony, Walker admitted striking the victim, V. P., but claimed that V. P. had attacked him with a knife. He also admitted taking V. P.'s ATM card.

Q: What did you do with the ATM card?

A: I got — I wanted — I was scared. I hadn't never been in trouble before. I didn't know what to do . . . I figured I'd get out of town . . . I went to a couple of banks to see if it'd work. It didn't work.

During opening statements, Walker's counsel told the jury that

[t]he defendant -the defendant, he's never been in any trouble before. The evidence is going to show that [the victim] has been convicted several times of felonies. He's been in prison before, but the defendant, he's never seen anything like this.

The State, in response to Walker's testimony that he had never been in trouble, offered into evidence Walker's previous third degree assault conviction. The trial court allowed the conviction into evidence over Walker's objection. Walker claims the trial court erred because the conviction improperly placed his character into issue.

OCGA § 24-9-20(b) provides in part that:

If a defendant in a criminal case wishes to testify and announces in open court his intention to do so, he may so testify in his own behalf. If a defendant testifies, he shall be sworn as any other witness and may be examined and cross-examined as any other witness, except that no evidence of general bad character or prior convictions shall be admissible unless and until the defendant shall have first put his character in issue.

Walker contends that the statement, "I've never been in trouble before," did not put his character into issue, and thus he did not "open the door" to the introduction of his assault conviction. "[A] defendant does not put his `character in issue' within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20(b) by inadvertent statements regarding his own good conduct." "Both this court and our Supreme Court have held that a reference to a defendant's having been in trouble does not place his character in issue, since it is unclear what is meant by such a remark. [Cits.]"

(Footnote omitted.) Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 758(1) ( 363 S.E.2d 529) (1988).

Richardson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 695, 696(2) ( 327 S.E.2d 813) (1985).

Here, Walker's claim to have "never been in trouble" does not appear to be inadvertent. He offered the statement while explaining his conduct after taking V. P.'s ATM card. Furthermore, his counsel in opening statements characterized Walker as unblemished and V. P. as a violent felon. In these circumstances, regardless of whether Walker had placed his character into issue, Walker's statement that he had never been in trouble is subject to impeachment to show the lack of truthfulness in his testimony.

`Where the defendant testifies in his own behalf and falsely denies past criminal conduct (or past misdeeds,) the State may introduce evidence reflecting negatively on the defendant's character only insofar as that evidence proves the falsity of specific testimony of the defendant. . . . In this circumstance the defendant has not placed his character in issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20(b). Rather, we recognize this as a situation where the state is permitted to rebut statements of a defendant who testifies at trial by disproving the facts testified to.' [Cit.]

Parker v. State, 169 Ga. App. 557(1) ( 313 S.E.2d 751) (1984).

This case is factually similar to Williams v. State, where counsel in opening statements characterized the defendant as having never been in trouble before and the defendant testified he had never been in any kind of trouble. We affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the defendant's two prior arrests into evidence for purposes of impeachment, but not to show general bad character. "A defendant who may not be subject to impeachment by proof of general bad character or prior convictions as provided in OCGA § 24-9-84 until he puts his character in evidence, is still subject to impeachment. . . ." Here, the State was also entitled to impeach Walker's testimony by introducing his previous conviction for assault, and the trial court did not err in allowing it.

171 Ga. App. 927 ( 321 S.E.2d 423) (1984).

Id. at 928(2).

Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur.