Allen v. State, 56015
| Decision Date | 25 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56015,56015 |
| Citation | 146 Ga.App. 815,247 S.E.2d 540 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Phillip Slotin, Decatur, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Donald J. Stein, J. Wallace Speed, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Willie Joe Allen appeals from his conviction by a jury for burglary and sentence of ten years in a state penitentiary, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.
On August 19, 1976, Diaz Construction Company's Fulton County office was burglarized. Among the items taken were a quantity of payroll checks, an electric typewriter, two calculators and a circular saw. At approximately 10:30 p. m. on that same date, defendant and another man appeared at a house in DeKalb County which they knew to be a place where they could sell stolen property. Unknown to defendant, it was part of a fencing operation operated by federal agents and the entire transaction was videotaped. The agents purchased 10 Diaz Construction Co. payroll checks, the typewriter, calculators and circular saw for $120. All the items were later identified as having been stolen from the construction company. Defendant verified that the encounter took place, but denied that he participated in the burglary. He claims that his friend already had the items when they met during the course of the evening and he merely accompanied his friend to the house to help him sell the goods although he admitted that he thought they were probably stolen.
1. Defendant asserts the general grounds and alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. To convict a defendant of burglary based upon recent possession of stolen goods, it must be shown that the goods were stolen and there must be an unsatisfactory explanation of that possession. Chubbs v. State, 204 Ga. 762, 51 S.E.2d 851 (1949); Selph v. State, 142 Ga.App. 26, 234 S.E.2d 831 (1977). In the present case, defendant claims that he was only trying to help a friend, although he admits that when it was suggested that they get the circular saw from the trunk of the car so they could sell it also, he handed the car keys over to his friend. He claims, however, that he drove the car only after his friend picked him up enroute to the house. Evans v. State, 138 Ga.App. 460(1), 226 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1976); Rutledge v. State, 142 Ga.App. 399, 400, 236 S.E.2d 143 (1977). The jury also viewed the videotape of the transaction. We find this enumeration without merit.
2. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see and hear the videotape as it was unclear and garbled. After seeing and viewing the videotape, the trial court agreed that it was unclear, but allowed it to be admitted into evidence. If the admissibility of evidence is doubtful, it should be admitted and its weight left to the determination of the jury. Green v. State, 112 Ga.App. 329, 145 S.E.2d 80 (1965). The original videotape identified as state's Exhibit 1 was not shown to the jury; instead a reproduction identified as state's Exhibit 2 was shown. Defendant complains that the tape shown to the jury was not the original tape of the transaction and that there was a failure to show a proper chain of possession of the original tape. In Solomon, Inc. v. Edgar, 92 Ga.App. 207, 88 S.E.2d 167 (1955), the seven elements that must be established as a foundation for tape recordings were set forth: (1) It must be shown that the mechanical transcription device was capable of taking the testimony. (2) It must be shown that the operator of the device was competent to operate it. (3) The authenticity and correctness of the recording must be established. (4) It must be shown that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made. (5) The manner of preservation of the record must be shown. (6) Speakers must be identified. (7) It must be shown that the testimony elicited was freely and voluntarily made, without any kind of duress. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phagan v. State
...for admission of an audiotape set forth in Solomon, Inc. v. Edgar, 92 Ga.App. 207, 88 S.E.2d 167 (1955) be met. Allen v. State, 146 Ga.App. 815(2), 247 S.E.2d 540 (1978). Since that time, however, the appellate court has implicitly recognized that videotapes do not fit the Solomon mold as e......
-
State v. Berky
...presents an opportunity to review the foundation requirements for the admission of videotapes into evidence. In Allen v. State, 146 Ga.App. 815, 817, 247 S.E.2d 540 (1978), we determined that the foundation requirements for the admission of tape recordings, previously established in Steve M......
-
Harper v. State
...was being operated by competent personnel. Compare Bedley v. State, 189 Ga.App. 90, 91(3), 374 S.E.2d 841 (1988); Allen v. State, 146 Ga.App. 815, 817(2), 247 S.E.2d 540 (1978). The rule in other jurisdictions is that where a foundation is laid for the admission in evidence of a videotape t......
-
Elliott v. State
...the transcripts in open court is prohibited as it is the same as taking a written confession into the jury room. In Allen v. State, 146 Ga.App. 815(3), 247 S.E.2d 540, we found no error in the replaying in open court of a video tape of defendant selling stolen property to undercover agents ......
-
Reel to real: should you believe what you see?
...that district court must be very careful to assure post-hypnosis recollections are not tainted by suggestion). (12.) See Allen v. State, 247 S.E.2d 540 (Ga. App. 1978) (listing factors for videotape admission); RYCHLAK, supra note 9, at [sections] 9-10(a) (noting videotape was first admitte......