Buchanan v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1970,A94A1970 |
| Citation | 449 S.E.2d 660,215 Ga.App. 143 |
| Parties | BUCHANAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph M. Todd, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Todd E. Naugle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant, James Buchanan, appeals his conviction by a jury of a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict shows that on September 23, 1993, Ernest Bonapart, a narcotics agent, drove his undercover vehicle in an area of Clayton County known for its high distribution of crack cocaine. Buchanan was standing alone on the street and waved at the agent. The agent turned his vehicle around and returned to the location where Buchanan was standing. Buchanan walked up to the agent's vehicle and the agent asked him if he had two $20 bags of crack cocaine. After a short conversation between the two, Buchanan kneeled down on the side of the agent's vehicle and picked up two ziplock bags, each containing a small piece of crack cocaine. Buchanan subsequently dropped the bags on the floor of the vehicle. Agent Bonapart gave Buchanan two $20 bills from the county's funds, and Buchanan quickly walked away.
The agent informed the other officers by radio that the sale was completed and provided the officers with a description of Buchanan. Approximately six minutes later, Buchanan was apprehended in the area and arrested. Thereafter, he was taken to Agent Bonapart who identified him as the person who sold him the contraband. Buchanan was also identified at trial by Agent Bonapart and another officer involved in the investigation.
Buchanan's version of the events conflicted with the testimony provided by the State's witnesses. Buchanan testified that Agent Bonapart waved at him and asked him to come over to the vehicle. When the agent asked him for crack cocaine, Buchanan told the agent that he did not have any, but indicated that the agent could probably find some cocaine if he checked around in the area. Buchanan further stated that he did not have any contraband because he did not "mess with it." As he walked away from the agent and proceeded in the direction of the store, he was suddenly apprehended and arrested. At the time of the arrest, he did not have any of the county's money or any contraband on his person. Over objection, the trial court admitted a certified copy of Buchanan's 1989 conviction for possession of cocaine for the limited purpose of impeaching his testimony that he did not "mess" with cocaine.
1. In three separate enumerations, Buchanan asserts that the evidence produced at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree. Viewing the evidence under the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), there was ample evidence from which a rational trier of fact could determine Buchanan's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Although Buchanan denied selling cocaine to the agent, the jury was authorized to reject Buchanan's testimony in light of the narcotics agent's testimony that Buchanan sold him the contraband. "On appeal of a criminal conviction, the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Platt v. State, 211 Ga.App. 721, 722, 440 S.E.2d 495 (1994). The jury resolves all conflicts in the evidence produced at trial. Id.
We reject Buchanan's assertion that a directed verdict of acquittal was warranted in light of the sharp conflict in the evidence produced at trial. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kirkland v. State, 211 Ga.App. 805, 807(1), 440 S.E.2d 542 (1994).
2. Next, Buchanan asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the certified copy of his prior conviction for impeachment purposes.
Under Bland v. State, 198 Ga.App. 671, 672, 402 S.E.2d 782 (1991), Buchanan's statement that he did not mess with cocaine could be construed as a denial that he had ever been involved in any cocaine-related offenses "so as to render admissible for purposes of impeachment (by disproving the facts testified to by defendant) evidence that he had previously been convicted of possession of cocaine." Consequently, the trial court did not err in admitting this prior conviction. See Mitchell v. State, 158 Ga.App. 628(2), 281 S.E.2d 260 (1981).
3. Lastly, Buchanan maintains that the trial court erred in granting the prosecutor's oral reverse Batson challenge and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duckworth v. State, A96A2233
...(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kirkland v. State, 211 Ga.App. 805, 807(1), 440 S.E.2d 542 (1994); Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga.App. 143, 144-145, 449 S.E.2d 660 (1994); Clark v. State, 207 Ga.App. 50, 51(1), 427 S.E.2d 43 (1993); see also Taylor v. State, 252 Ga. 125, 126(1), 312 S.E.2d 3......
-
Jester v. State
...that he had previously been convicted of possession of cocaine [with intent to sell]." (Punctuation omitted.) Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga.App. 143, 145(2), 449 S.E.2d 660 (1994). Therefore, evidence of Jester's prior conviction was appropriately admitted in order to impeach specific testimony......
-
Evans v. State
...221 Ga.App. 574(1), 472 S.E.2d 113 (1996). "The jury resolves all conflicts in the evidence produced at trial." Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga.App. 143, 144(1), 449 S.E.2d 660 (1994). The evidence shows that McGriff and another man, Damon Williams, went to see McGriff's sister, who lived with Ev......
-
Brown v. State, A95A1313
...reinstating improperly challenged jurors. McKibbons v. State, 216 Ga.App. 389, 390-391, 455 S.E.2d 293 (1995); Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga.App. 143, 145-146, 449 S.E.2d 660 (1994). "The 'prohibition of the discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges does not violate a defendant's Sixth A......