GA Sup Ct - we're not even bad characters

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by kkennett, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    The GA Sup Ct today in Nichols (not Bryan) v GA gave the fellow a new trial because evidence of his ownership of unrelated firearms was introduced. Mr. Nichols was involved in a shooting outside a gas station. Nine days later the police searched his home and found an unrelated rifle and shotgun. The State tried to introduce these as evidence of his general propensity for violence and general bad personness.

    From the decision:

    Nichols contends that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence because
    it was irrelevant and prejudicial. We agree.


    It is undisputed that the firearms and ammunition at issue were in no way
    involved in the fatal shooting of Jones. Compare Dukes v. State, 273 Ga. 890, 892
    (4) (548 SE2d 328) (2001). The firearms were not even the same type of weapon;
    Jones was shot with a pistol, not a rifle or shotgun. The firearms and ammunition did
    not shed any light whatsoever on the circumstances of the shooting. In fact, at trial,
    several police officers involved in the case acknowledged that such weapons and
    ammunition had no relevance at all to the shooting.


    The State urges another basis for admission of the evidence was to contradict
    Nichols’s mother’s testimony that Nichols was not a troubled child, was non-violent,
    and was nurturing. However, the fact that Nichols may have possessed firearms and
    ammunition in his home does not demonstrate his state of mind as a child, that he
    lacked a nurturing personality, or that he was violent. Merely owning or possessing
    a firearm does not impute even bad character.

    So we're not even 'bad characters' for owning firearms. Here's my question: why does failing to own a firearm not impute bad character for failing to take charge of one's safety and the safety of his family? Why does not failing to own a firearm for the purpose of defending the nation or a revolution not impute bad character?

    Here's your link:
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    Better yet, is every citizen in Kennesaw that follows all the local laws "bad characters"?

    You have to own a firearm in Kennesaw. Which I guess means anyone following the city law is a bad character, and everyone who breaks the law is a good character... that is, according to "The State".

    Gives me a little more hope about Moore v Cranford.