Cauley v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 51631,51631,3 |
| Parties | M. E. CAULEY et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Donald E. Strickland, Albany, for appellants.
A. Wallace Cato, Dist. Atty., Bainbridge, for appellee.
Two police officers had been given notice to apprehend parties in a black and white Cadillac with Georgia license number WBX 632 from Baker County. This vehicle had been seen at the site of an earlier burglary. Defendants were observed in the described automobile while parked on the side of the road at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. As one of the police officers approached the vehicle, one defendant was observed to 'reach behind his back . . . like he was putting something behind the seat.' All defendants were taken out of the car and the police officer looked in the car where the suspicious activity had taken place. He found a .357 Magnum pistol and a small brown 'coin envelope' which 'contained some marijuana.' A check made over the police radio revealed that the pistol had been stolen.
Thereafter the officers checked the trunk of the car and found a 'crocus bag' with 'silver paint' on it. They had been advised to look for such a bag as the property taken in the burglary was in a crocus bag with silver paint on it. This bag was identified by the manager and an employee of the burglarized firm as similar to those sacks marked by them, which had been taken on the night of the burglary. Also found in the truck of the car was a 'tire tool' with what appeared to be 'red and gray paint on the end of it.' The defendants were placed in jail and their automobile was parked beside the police station. The next morning a search warrant was obtained and the tire tool was seized.
Defendants appeal their conviction and denial of motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Held:
1. Defendants enumerate as error the reference to 'marijuana' allegedly seized from their automobile for two reasons. First, the substance was not admitted into evidence. Second, there was no proof that it was marijuana. They also argue that it was error to permit testimony regarding the tire tool taken from the defendant's automobile without 'requiring the presentation of the same into evidence.' Although the parties stipulated into evidence the laboratory report that the paint chips found on the tire tool, when compared to paint chips taken from the front door of the burglarized building and a coin operated vending machine broken into on the inside of the building during the burglary, were of 'similar color, layer structure, ultraviolet fluorescence, texture and solubility,' they now allege that it was improper to admit such evidence without requiring the presentation of the tire tool in evidence. They voice another objection to a lack of state's evidence identifying the crocus bag as the one removed from the trunk of the defendant's vehicle.
All of these enumerations of error suffer one common disability. They were never raised at trial. No objection was placed to any evidence except that of the admission of the pistol into evidence. Appellate courts exist for the correction of trial error, where proper objection is taken. Velkey v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 420, 421, 105 S.E.2d 224. Where enumerated errors on appeal attempt to raise for the first time questions not raised in the trial court, they present nothing for decision. Patterson v. State, 228 Ga. 389, 390, 185 S.E.2d 762; Johnson v. State, 128 Ga.App. 69(1), 195 S.E.2d 676.
2. For the same reason, defendant's enumeration regarding the trial court's comment on the rule of sequestration presents nothing for decision as there was no objection at trial. Nicholson v. State, 133 Ga.App. 819(2), 212 S.E.2d 474.
3. The trial court committed no harmful error by admitting in evidence, over objection, the .357 Magnum pistol found in defendant's car at the time of their apprehension. Two police officers had previously testified, without objection, about the discovery of the pistol in the defendant's car and their immediate check over the radio to find that it was a stolen weapon. Nothing was shown or given to the jury that had not been previously heard or seen by them. Coley v. State, 135 Ga.App. 810(1), 219 S.E.2d 35. Accordingly, admission of the weapon was not prejudicial. Furthermore, the evidence was admissible as part of the res gestae. Surrounding circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toole v. State
...to the state's redirect examination of the victim was not raised at trial and therefore presents nothing for decision. Cauley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 814, 224 S.E.2d 794. 13. "In a Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) type hearing, the presiding judge acts as t......
-
Strickland v. Department of Transp., A90A0313
...do not mislead or obscure meaning, do not require a new trial. Evans v. State, 68 Ga.App. 207(5), 22 S.E.2d 618." Cauley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 814, 816(4), 224 S.E.2d 794. In the case sub judice, DOT's own expert testified that there were no consequential benefits to the Stricklands' remain......
-
Bone v. State
...to raise for the first time questions not raised in the trial court, nothing is presented for appellate decision. Cauley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 814, 815, 224 S.E.2d 794. 5. In enumeration of error 5, Ms. Bone contends there was no corroboration of the testimony of the several accomplices and......
-
Johnson v. State, 56929
...supplied.) " Inaccuracies in a charge which do not mislead or obscure meaning, do not require a new trial." Cauley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 814, 816, 224 S.E.2d 794, 796. However, this is not just an inaccurate charge. The court gave two conflicting charges. We have no way of knowing which one......