Bowdry v. State

• Decision Date: 05 January 1994
• Docket Number: No. A93A1919,A93A1919
• Citation: Bowdry v. State, 440 S.E.2d 59, 211 Ga.App. 626 (Ga. App. 1994)
• Parties: BOWDRY v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 59

440 S.E.2d 59

211 Ga.App. 626

BOWDRY v.The STATE.

No. A93A1919.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 5, 1994.

Jimmy D. Plunkett, Thomson, for appellant.

Dennis C. Sanders, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

POPE, Chief Judge.

DefendantAnthony Bowdry appeals from his convictions for possessing and selling cocaine.

In his sole enumeration of error, defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing testimony concerning defendant's prior similar offenses because the person who testified about the similar offenses was not a witness to the offenses and was familiar with the transactions only because of his duties as Chief Deputy Sheriff of McDuffie County.After conducting the requisite hearing, the trial court ruled that the State could present the testimony of the former chief deputy, now the current Sheriff of McDuffie County, concerning similar offenses by the defendant.The sheriff testified that in 1989, when the similar offenses occurred, he was the chief deputy in McDuffie County and one of his duties was to supervise and direct the activities of a drug task force working within the county.He had almost daily contact with the investigators in the task force and was kept informed of their activities in the area.During the similar transaction hearing, he testified he was not an investigator ¹ of those crimes, cf.Jackson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 827(2), 424 S.E.2d 6(1992), but he had worked closely with the undercover agent and knew that the offenses were similar.He was allowed to testify that the prior offenses, like this case, involved cocaine buys by an undercover agent from defendant in a high drug activity area.He identified certified copies of defendant's convictions (guilty pleas) for selling and possessing cocaine on September 22, 1989, September 23, 1989, and October 19, 1989 and the convictions were admitted into evidence.

The witness acknowledged during the hearing on the evidence, however, that he did not have personal knowledge of what happened during the drug buys giving rise to the similar offenses and his only knowledge of what happened was based on hearsay.It follows, therefore, that the witness' testimony concerning the similarity of the prior offenses was inadmissible hearsay, which was of no probative value to prove the similarity of the prior offenses.As he was the only witness called by the State concerning the similarity of the prior offenses, the similar transaction evidence was erroneously admitted.Brown v. State, 199 Ga.App. 18(2), 404 S.E.2d 154(1991).

Erroneous admission of similar transaction evidence, however, may be harmless.Faison v. State, 199 Ga.App. 447, 449(1), 405 S.E.2d 277(1991).In this case there was overwhelming evidence presented of defendant's guilt.An undercover agent ² identified defendant as the man from whom...