Bailey v. State
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McMURRAY; DEEN, C. J., and BIRDSONG; SHULMAN |
| Citation | Bailey v. State, 257 S.E.2d 334, 150 Ga.App. 211 (Ga. App. 1979) |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57614,57614 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. The STATE. |
Grace W. Thomas, Decatur, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Benjamin H. Oehlert, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendant was indicted in three counts for the offenses of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He was subsequently tried and convicted on all three counts and sentenced to serve 20 years on each count to run concurrently. A motion for new trial was duly filed, amended and overruled after a hearing. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Testimony was produced at the trial that the victim, a student nurse and nursing assistant, was abducted in a parking lot at Georgia Baptist Hospital at about 9 p. m. at night when she opened the front and back doors of her automobile to place certain articles in the back seat. She was grabbed from behind, pushed into the back seat, a fight ensued, her keys were taken from her, she was then shoved in the front seat, tried to escape but was pulled back into the automobile at which time she lost a shoe which was later recovered by the police. She was choked, her nose was broken, she received blacked eyes, a bruised neck and a bruise on her hip. The victim testified that The testimony also disclosed that she was driven for 15 or 20 minutes to a location where she was raped in the back seat. She later escaped from the automobile when it was stopped at a traffic stop sign. She noticed a watch with a broken band on the arm of the assailant, along with two scars. This physical evidence was later observed on an employee of Georgia Baptist Hospital, and he was identified by the victim. Another witness identified the automobile being driven back and parked by the defendant. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict as to all three offenses. See Toole v. State, 146 Ga.App. 305(1), 246 S.E.2d 338; Cochran v. State, 146 Ga.App. 414(1), 246 S.E.2d 431. Despite the affidavits attached to the amended motion for new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence involving an alleged mistake in identity of the defendant by the victim in that the defendant's common-law wife had located information that there had been a former employee by the name of Leroy Brown whom the victim had testified was the name of the culprit, yet this evidence does not dispute her identification of the defendant as the person who had abducted her (kidnapping) and then...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Tims v. State
...someone else might have committed the crime, which does not dispute the identification at trial, is insufficient. Bailey v. State, 150 Ga.App. 211(1), 212, 257 S.E.2d 334; Curry v. State, 155 Ga.App. 829, 832-833(8), 273 S.E.2d 411; Lord v. State, 156 Ga.App. 492, 493(1), 274 S.E.2d 641, su......
-
Young v. State
...his own daughter several years earlier is not so material that it would likely produce a different verdict. See Bailey v. State, 150 Ga.App. 211, 212(2), 257 S.E.2d 334 (1979). Moreover, after careful consideration of the evidence the trial court found that Ms. Young's trial testimony was c......
- Lorick v. Na-Churs Plant Food Co.