Bell v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53299,53299,2 |
| Parties | E. F. BELL v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Herbert Shafer, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, H. Allen Moye, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.
Defendant was tried on two indictments for violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He brings this appeal from a verdict of guilty on one of the charges.
1. As the consolidation for trial of the two separate indictments was done at the request of defendant's trial counsel, there is no error. Moreover, it is clear that no harm resulted to this defendant from the consolidation because the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on one of the indictments.
2. Early in the trial a police officer was permitted to testify to the contents of a conversation with an informant. In that conversation the informant related to the officer the contents of another conversation which he had overheard. This is the only cited instance of hearsay. The court admitted the testimony solely for the purpose of explaining the officer's course of conduct, and carefully instructed the jury on the nature of the testimony and its limited purpose. The admission into evidence of testimony such as this is not error, especially where it is preceded by specific instructions by the court. Code Ann. § 38-302; Lloyd v. State, 139 Ga.App. 625(2), 229 S.E.2d 106; Braden v. State, 135 Ga.App. 827(3), 219 S.E.2d 479. That this testimony was not damaging to the defendant is illustrated by the fact that it related solely to the charge of which the defendant was found not guilty.
3. An informant was used by the undercover police officer in contacting the defendant. The name of the informant was not disclosed at trial and it is asserted that this constitutes reversible error. We do not agree. Taylor v. State, 136 Ga.App. 31(2), 220 S.E.2d 49. See Welch v. State, 130 Ga.App. 18(3), 202 S.E.2d 223. Furthermore, at no time did the defendant request disclosure of the informant's identity. See Copeland v. State, 133 Ga.App. 713(2), 213 S.E.2d 17...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mooney v. State
...rights were not violated by this testimony. Harrell v. State, 241 Ga. 181, 243 S.E.2d 890 (1978). See also Bell v. State, 141 Ga.App. 277, 233 S.E.2d 253 (1977). 6. Color Slides of Mooney next claims error in the trial court's allowing into evidence a series of 19 color slides of the victim......
-
Leonard v. State
...Howard v. State, 144 Ga.App. 208, 240 S.E.2d 908 (1977); Miller v. State, 141 Ga.App. 382, 233 S.E.2d 460 (1977); Bell v. State, 141 Ga.App. 277, 233 S.E.2d 253 (1977). Further, when the informant is a witness from participating directly in the offense prosecuted and the arrest, the trial c......
-
Mallory v. State, 65991
...be considered not for the truth of the matter stated but only as it may tend to explain the conduct of this witness. In Bell v. State, 141 Ga.App. 277(2), 233 S.E.2d 253, this court considered a police officer's testimony relevant to a conversation with an informant in which the informant r......
-
Henry v. State, 59497
...not as hearsay, but as original evidence." Code § 38-302. See Tanner v. State, 228 Ga. 829, 830(3), 188 S.E.2d 512; Bell v. State, 141 Ga.App. 277(2), 233 S.E.2d 253; Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 534, 537(5), 224 S.E.2d 386; Kelly v. State, 82 Ga. 441(3), 444, 9 S.E. Here, under the guise of or......