Brinson v. State

• Decision Date: 29 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. A93A0159,A93A0159
• Citation: 208 Ga.App. 556,430 S.E.2d 875
• Parties: BRINSON v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 875

430 S.E.2d 875

208 Ga.App. 556

BRINSON v. The STATE.

No. A93A0159.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 29, 1993.

Charles R. Sheppard, Augusta, for appellant.

Michael C. Eubanks, Dist. Atty., Richard E. Thomas, Nancy J. Berger, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

SOGNIER, Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of burglary and aggravated sodomy. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury's verdicts of guilt.

1. Over appellant's hearsay objection, the investigating officer was permitted to relate the victim's description of her assailant, given to the officer ten or fifteen minutes after the victim had been taken to the hospital. The trial court's evidentiary ruling that her description came within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule is enumerated as error.

This testimony as to what the victim told the witness very shortly after the attack was properly admissible as part of the res gestae pursuant to OCGA § 24-3-3. Haralson v. State, 234 Ga. 406, 407-408(3), 216 S.E.2d 304 (1975); Barker v. State, 144 Ga.App. 339-340(2), 241 S.E.2d 11 (1977). "The fact that some of the statements [might have been] in reply to questions of the [witness] would not render them inadmissible. [Cits.]" Littles v. State, 236 Ga. 651, 652(2), 224 S.E.2d 918 (1976). "Such evidence should be admitted if it is relevant and made without premeditation. [Cit.] A trial [court's] determination that evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. [Cit.]" Robinson v. State, 197 Ga.App. 600, 601(2), 399 S.E.2d 94 (1990). We find no error.

2. Over appellant's "chain of custody" objection, the trial court admitted into evidence the test results of a medical rape evidence kit containing a blood sample and an alleged semen sample taken from the body of the victim. "The evidence shows that the blood [and other fluid] sample[s] [were] handled in the normal course of testing and there is nothing in the record that creates a suspicion that the [samples] tested [were] other than [those] taken from the [body of the victim]." Patterson v. State, 224 Ga. 197, 199(2), 160 S.E.2d 815 (1968). "In view of the evidence as to the tamper-resistant nature of the materials and procedures used to send the [samples] by registered mail, and the absence of [any physical manifestations of] tampering, it appears to a reasonable certainty that the evidence which reached the crime laboratory [serologist] is the same as that which was [taken from the victim's body].... [I]t is obvious that one of the two officers who testified that he had mailed the [samples] has faulty recollection on this point. [However], none of the points argued by [appellant] amounts to evidence of tampering or cast[s] [any] doubt on the identity of the exhibits [so as] to amount to a broken chain of custody. [Cits.]" Richards v. State, 189 Ga.App. 146, 147(1), 375 S.E.2d 278 (1988). "There being, at most, bare speculation of tampering or substitution, the trial court correctly admitted the [samples] into evidence. [Cit.]" Langham v. State, 196 Ga.App. 71, 72(1), 395 S.E.2d 345 (1990). See also Mutcherson v. State, 179 Ga.App. 114, 345 S.E.2d 661 (1986).

3. Appellant was charged with the burglary of a motel room. At the close of the State's evidence, he moved for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the burglary charge. The denial of that motion is enumerated as error.

Appellant argues that because he was a friend of the persons renting the motel room he had implied permission to enter through the open door. However, the lodgers testified that they had not given him permission to enter, but that they were on their way out when appellant knocked on their door. They told appellant that they were leaving and left with the door closed and locked. Appellant then entered the room when the motel maid, the victim of appellant's sexual assault, left the door open while she was cleaning the room.

"The essential elements of burglary [as proscribed by OCGA § 16-7-1(a) ] are unauthorized entry and intent to commit a theft or other felony. Without proof of the essential element of unauthorized entry, a burglary conviction cannot stand. [Cits.]" Caldwell v. State, 183 Ga.App. 110, 111(1), 357 S.E.2d 845 (1987). "The [S]tate proved that the dwelling was entered without authority of the ... lawful occupant. This was sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury for decision...." Murphy v. State, 238 Ga. 725,...