Chambley v. State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 71561,71561
• Citation: 340 S.E.2d 635,177 Ga.App. 630
• Parties: CHAMBLEY v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 635

340 S.E.2d 635

177 Ga.App. 630

CHAMBLEY v. The STATE.

No. 71561.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 31, 1986.

Don E. Snow, Thomaston, for appellant.

Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., Christopher C. Edwards, Paschal A. English, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault (with intent to rape) and kidnapping and now appeals. Held :

1. In his first enumeration of error the defendant contends that all statements he made while in police custody were fruits of an illegal arrest and were therefore inadmissible at trial.

The record shows that the defendant made two statements to the police after his arrest. The first statement was offered into evidence by the State. The second statement was offered into evidence by the defense. Since the defendant offered his second statement into evidence, he cannot complain that it was erroneously admitted by the trial court. Induced error cannot be complained of on appeal. Reynolds v. State, 147 Ga.App. 488, 491(4), 249 S.E.2d 305. Further, the statement offered by the defense substantiated all admissions contained in the statement offered by the State. (In fact, the statement offered by the defendant was more graphically incriminating. It described details of how the defendant committed the crime charged and how he committed a sufficiently similar crime a week after he committed the crime charged.) Consequently, even though the statement offered by the State may have been illegally admitted, it cannot constitute reversible error since substantially the same statement was introduced into evidence by the defendant. See Johnson v. State, 84 Ga.App. 745, 748(1), 67 S.E.2d 246; Harris v. Stynchcombe, 227 Ga. 763(1), 183 S.E.2d 205; Glass v. Lowery, 168 Ga.App. 153(2), 308 S.E.2d 616. Finally, we have thoroughly examined the record and find that other evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly supported the verdict. " 'A constitutional error is harmless, if there is no "reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction" Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 230, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963). The test is not "whether there was sufficient evidence on which the petitioner could have been convicted without the evidence complained of," id., but whether the evidence complained of may have influenced the factfinder's deliberations, see Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 1728, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).' Harryman v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 927, 929 (1979). Overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt can negate the possibility that the constitutional error contributed to the conviction. Milton v. Wainwright, [407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972) ]." Vaughn v. State, 248 Ga. 127, 131-132, 281 S.E.2d 594. Consequently, any error committed by admitting the statement offered by the State into evidence was harmless.

2. In his second enumeration of error the defendant contends that evidence of his prior criminal actions was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and served only to prejudice the jury against him.

"In Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351 (314 S.E.2d 621) (1984), we held that evidence of prior criminal actions are admissible if relevant to the issues in the present case. The state must show, however, that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the prior action and that sufficient similarity exists between the prior action and the offense charged. Walraven v. State, 250 Ga. 401 (297 S.E.2d 278) (1982). Once this foundation is laid, evidence of prior crimes is admissible to show motive, intent, plan, identity, bent of mind or course of conduct." Sport v. State, 253 Ga. 689(1), 324 S.E.2d 184. In the case sub judice, the evidence showed that one week after the crime charged the defendant kidnapped and raped another woman in almost exactly the same manner that he abducted the victim. The defendant forced each woman off the road by ramming his pickup truck into her vehicle. While each woman sat dazed in her disabled vehicle, ...