Anderson v. State, 64931
Decision Date | 08 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 64931,64931 |
Citation | 165 Ga.App. 885,303 S.E.2d 57 |
Parties | ANDERSON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rick F. Ellis, Fitzgerald, for appellant.
Thomas H. Pittman, Dist. Atty., Arthur W. Leach, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the sale of cocaine. On appeal he contends the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecuting attorney improperly placed appellant's character in issue; (2) by denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecuting attorney read the February criminal calendar in the presence of the jury panel, said calendar containing three felony charges against appellant; (3) by allowing testimony, over objection, as to records at the crime lab; (4) by failing to strike certain testimony relating to State's Exhibit 1; (5) by improperly admitting State's Exhibit 1 into evidence without proving a chain of custody; and (6) by restricting appellant's cross-examination of a GBI agent concerning motivation, bias and credibility.
On the night of November 20, 1980, a confidential informant took Arthur Foreman, an undercover GBI agent, to the mobile home of appellant in Ocilla, Georgia. Foreman was introduced to appellant, who was told by the informant that Foreman wanted to buy some drugs. Appellant then sold Foreman one gram of cocaine for $100. Foreman put the cocaine in his pocket and after departing, put the cocaine in an evidence bag, tagged the bag for identification and locked it in the trunk of his car. On arriving home that night Foreman put the evidence in a locked suitcase, where it remained until he delivered it to Dr. Jim Howard at the crime lab in Moultrie, Georgia. Appellant was positively identified by Foreman as the person who sold him the cocaine.
1. On direct examination the district attorney asked Foreman how he knew appellant, and Foreman replied that he was given a list and appellant was on the list as a suspected drug dealer. Appellant moved for a mistrial on the ground that appellant's character was placed improperly in issue. The motion was denied and appellant contends the denial of his motion was error. This contention has been decided adversely to appellant in Bettis v. State, 160 Ga.App. 109(1), 286 S.E.2d 759 (1981).
2. While not recorded in the transcript, the prosecutor apparently read the February 1982 criminal calendar in the presence of the panel of potential jurors prior to commencement of trial in the instant case. The calendar allegedly contained three felony charges against appellant, who moved for a mistrial on the ground that it placed appellant's character in issue and made it impossible to obtain jurors who had not heard the prejudicial information about appellant. In the alternative, appellant asked that all jurors present when the calendar was read be disqualified. The court denied the motion for a mistrial and did not disqualify the jurors; appellant contends this was error. We do not agree.
We cannot tell from the record before us exactly what information was read from the criminal calendar. However, in Dye v. State, 77 Ga.App. 517, 521(2), 48 S.E.2d 742 (1948), we held: We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the instant case in denying the motion for a mistrial or disqualifying the jurors.
3. Appellant objected to testimony of Charles Wagner that the records of the crime lab at Moultrie, Georgia, showed that State's Exhibit 1, the cocaine sold to Foreman, was received at the crime lab on December 1, 1981 by Dr. Jim Howard. In his third and fourth enumerations of error, appellant alleges error in the overruling of his objection to testimony concerning crime lab records relating to receipt and disposition of State's Exhibit 1.
If any error was committed in allowing Wagner to testify as to when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. State, 69622
...Although the right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination may not be abridged, that right is not unlimited. Anderson v. State, 165 Ga.App. 885, 887(5), 303 S.E.2d 57 (1983). The scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial judge, to control that right within reasona......
-
Sanders v. State, 73681
...attorney was coaching the witness. An appellant must show harm as well as error to warrant reversal. Anderson v. State, 165 Ga.App. 885, 887 (3), 303 S.E.2d 57 (1983). We find no harm resulting from the court's action and appellant has referred us to none. Accordingly, there was no 5. Appel......
-
Sims v. State, 64596
... ... Court of Appeals of Georgia ... March 9, 1983 ... Rehearing Denied March 24, 1983 ... [165 Ga.App. 885] R. Everett Anderson, Rome, for appellant ... F. Larry Salmon, Dist. Atty., William H. Boggs, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee ... [165 ... ...
-
Green v. State
...injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice, an appellate court will not reverse. Anderson v. State, 165 Ga.App. 885, 887 (3), 303 S.E.2d 57 (1983). Since evidence of the altercation had already been introduced previously without objection, no possible harm could r......