Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A1042,S91A1042 |
| Citation | 408 S.E.2d 412,261 Ga. 553 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Albert M. Pearson, III, University of Georgia School of Law, Legal Aid Clinic, Athens, for Carroll.
Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., Athens, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Gerald W. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., Athens, Thomas A. Cox, Jr., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for State.
Cliff Carroll was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm. 1
Cliff Carroll, Jerome Bacigalupo, and Bud Dailey were drinking and snorting cocaine in a trailer home on September 13, 1989. Dailey left the room to get something. Carroll and Bacigalupo began to argue. When Dailey returned, he found Carroll stabbing Bacigalupo and cutting his throat. Dailey ran out and called the police, but was unable to lead the police to the trailer. The next day the police found Bacigalupo dead of multiple stab wounds (14) and a slit throat. That day the police made a videotape of Dailey's account of the murder. The police also apprehended Carroll and made a videotape of his interview. Carroll first denied killing Bacigalupo, but later said he stabbed him in self-defense.
The videotapes were introduced over defense counsel's objection at trial. Carroll's statements were introduced as part of the prosecution's case in chief. Dailey's statements were admitted as prior consistent statements after Dailey was cross-examined by the defense.
1. Carroll contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain portions of Dailey's videotaped statements under the rationale of Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745, 334 S.E.2d 661 (1985). He asserts that Cuzzort should not apply because Dailey, as a suspect in the murder at the time the videotape was made, had a motive to fabricate his story. He argues that the statement therefore does not have sufficient indicia of reliability.
In Cuzzort we held that the concerns of the rule against hearsay are satisfied where the witness whose veracity is at issue is present at trial, under oath, and subject to cross-examination. When these conditions are satisfied, the prior consistent out-of-court statement of the witness is admissible. Cuzzort, supra; Lumpkin v. State, 255 Ga. 363, 338 S.E.2d 431 (1986); Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149, 335 S.E.2d 869 (1985). Any motive that Dailey may have had to fabricate his story affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.
Appellant also contends that four portions of Dailey's interview should not have been admitted because some of the matters contained were not included in direct and cross-examination and were unduly prejudicial. We find no error in the trial court's admitting the statements on either ground. Appellant cannot complain about the scope of the examination because he had the opportunity to recall Dailey to the stand to cross-examine him about any matter that was raised for the first time in the videotaped interview. Nor were the statements required to be excluded on the ground that they were unduly prejudicial. Smith v. State, 255 Ga. 685, 341 S.E.2d 451 (1986).
2. Appellant next contends that the video and audio tapes of his interview with police should have been redacted to remove certain statements by the police officers that were argumentative or that suggested that there might be more incriminating evidence than was presented at trial. Appellant argues that these were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braley v. State
...me in," was more probative than unduly prejudicial. Pickren v. State, 272 Ga. 421, 425(6), 530 S.E.2d 464 (2000); Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554(2), 408 S.E.2d 412 (1991). 26. The evidence showed that Braley threw the victim to the ground, inflicted an ultimately fatal wound to her thro......
-
Overton v. State
...[when] the witness whose veracity is at issue is present at trial, under oath, and subject to cross-examination." Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554(1), 408 S.E.2d 412 (1991). Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), does not demand a different result bec......
-
Lancaster v. State
...to remove material that was irrelevant or that put appellant's character in issue. The court committed no error. Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 408 S.E.2d 412, 413 (1991). Nothing resembling this process took place in the instant case. While the trial judge did view the videotape prior to m......
-
White v. State
...these conditions are satisfied, the prior consistent out-of-court statement of the witness is admissible. [Cits.]" Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554(1), 408 S.E.2d 412. In the case sub judice, both the mother and her daughter were subject to cross-examination regarding the details of the i......
-
Death Penalty Law - Michael Mears and Holly Geerdes
...138. Id. at 52, 572 S.E.2d at 592. 139. Id. (citing Pickren v. State, 272 Ga. 421, 425, 530 S.E.2d 464, 468 (2000); Carroll v. State, 261 Ga. 553, 554, 408 S.E.2d 412, 413 (1991)). 140. 276 Ga. 506, 578 S.E.2d 444 (2003). 141. Id. at 512-13, 578 S.E.2d at 452. 142. Id. at 513, 578 S.E.2d at......
-
Georgia's New Evidence Code - an Overview
...testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."). 58. See, e.g., Carroll v. State, 408 S.E.2d 412, 413 (Ga. 1991) ("In Cuzzort, we held that the concerns of the rule against hearsay are satisfied where the witness whose veracity is at issu......