Bowman v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 74724,74724 |
| Citation | 361 S.E.2d 58,184 Ga.App. 197 |
| Parties | BOWMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harlan M. Starr, Dalton, for appellant.
Jack O. Partain III, Dist. Atty., Steven M. Harrison, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of child molestation. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the jury's verdict.
1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that the State produced sufficient evidence from which the jury could find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. The indictment upon which appellant was brought to trial contained an allegation that the act of molestation had occurred between September 1, 1985 and November 19, 1985. The victim's testimony at trial included references to two other similar acts of molestation which had occurred prior to the period alleged in the indictment. Citing Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3, appellant objected to this testimony on the ground that the State had not given notification ten days prior to trial of its intent to introduce the two prior incidents into evidence. The trial court overruled appellant's objection and this ruling is enumerated as error.
An Pittman v. State, 179 Ga.App. 760(1), 348 S.E.2d 107 (1986). The dates alleged in appellant's indictment were not an essential averment thereof. The two prior similar acts of molestation which the victim attributed to appellant had occurred within the applicable four-year statute of limitation. Pittman v. State, supra at 760 (1), 348 S.E.2d 107. This enumeration is without merit.
3. Over objection, the trial court admitted into evidence the results of appellant's polygraph examination and this ruling is enumerated as error.
The record shows that the trial court was authorized to find that appellant had entered into an express, oral stipulation that the results of the polygraph examination could be used as evidence "for or against him" at trial. "[U]pon an express stipulation of the parties that they shall be admissible, the results of a lie detector test shall be admissible as evidence for the jury to attach to them whatever probative value they may find them to have."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...196 Ga.App. 690, 691(1), 396 S.E.2d 605 (1990); Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176, 177(2), 372 S.E.2d 506 (1988); Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 (1987). Further, where molestation, incest, or even rape occurs repeatedly over the period of the statute of limitations again......
-
Davis v. State
...of transactions of the nature charged within the period.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 (1987). Where, as here, the State alleges a certain range of dates in an indictment and does not specifically allege that those......
-
Johnson v. State
...allegedly occurring outside the dates." This compound enumeration is controlled adversely to defendant's contentions by Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58. Compare Story v. State, 196 Ga.App. 590, 591, 396 S.E.2d 547, where "the indictment alleged that [defendant] had molest......
-
Foreman v. State
...offense charged and was thus admissible. See, e.g., Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176(2), 372 S.E.2d 506 (1988); Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 (1987). Likewise, we cannot say that defendant was harmed by references to allegedly stolen property found in the apartment whe......