Chapman v. State, A95A0754
| Decision Date | 24 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A0754,A95A0754 |
| Citation | 457 S.E.2d 206,217 Ga.App. 264 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
David E. Perry, Albany, for appellant.
Britt R. Priddy, Dist. Atty., Johnnie M. Graham, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, for appellee.
Stephen W. Chapman appeals from his convictions of armed robbery and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony and from the denial of his motion for new trial.
1. Chapman asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial following an impermissible comment on the evidence made by the court. A review of the salient portion of the transcript reveals that the state was attempting to elicit testimony from a police officer regarding the victim's identification of Chapman in a photographic line-up. When Chapman objected to the testimony asserting no proper foundation had been laid for the admission of the testimony, the court asked: "Well, hasn't there been positive identification?" The prosecutor immediately responded there had been a positive identification. Chapman then asked that the jury be removed from the courtroom and moved for a mistrial claiming that the judge had improperly commented on the evidence in front of the jury.
It is improper for any judge to express or suggest his opinion regarding what has or has not been established or his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. OCGA § 17-8-57. The comments of the judge, compounded by the eager response by the state, clearly left the jury with the impression that Chapman had been positively identified as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. Because misidentification and alibi were Chapman's sole defenses, the comments directly addressed a material issue in the case.
We raise, but do not reach, the issue of whether curative instructions given to the jury by the court can avoid the harsh mandate of a new trial contemplated by OCGA § 17-8-57. See Nance v. State, 204 Ga.App. 653, 654, 420 S.E.2d 348 (1992) and Black v. State, 199 Ga.App. 819, 821, 406 S.E.2d 258 (1991) (Judge Beasley concurring specially), which imply but do not hold curative instructions may be sufficient; but also see Allen v. State, 194 Ga. 178, 184(2), 21 S.E.2d 73 (1942), in which the Supreme Court suggests any attempt by the trial judge to cure in such a situation would be unavailing. The curative instructions given to the jury in this case simply stated that any comment made by the court regarding the evidence does not mean that such evidence does or does not exist, and to disregard what the court said. This overly general curative instruction was not tailored to the specific events which had just transpired, did not refer to any particular comment made by the court and gave the jury no real guidance as to what it was to disregard. Therefore the instructions were insufficient as a matter of law.
The court's comment regarding evidence of a positive identification of Chapman, a disputed issue central to his defense, constituted harmful error and deprived Chapman of his constitutional right to have his case considered by a fair and impartial jury. The statute mandates a new trial, and he shall have one. See Allen v. State, supra; Demonia v. State, 69 Ga.App. 862, 27 S.E.2d 101 (1943).
2. Chapman asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for mistrial when a police officer testified he was assigned to follow-up on a domestic violence in reference to Chapman, impermissibly placing his character into evidence. A passing reference to a defendant's record does not place his character in evidence. Zellner v. State, 260 Ga. 749, 751(3), 399 S.E.2d 206 (1991). Here the police officer commented that he was investigating a claim. He did not say Chapman had been previously arrested or that he had a record of any kind. The trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial on this ground was not error.
3. There is no merit to Chapman's contention that the court erred in admitting two photographs into evidence because the witness testified that the photos looked "a bit different" from the scene, thereby failing to establish a proper foundation that the photos were fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burney v. State
...was explaining that the detective need not repeat what he learned from eyewitnesses to the crimes. Compare Chapman v. State, 217 Ga.App. 264, 264–265, 457 S.E.2d 206 (1995) (holding that the trial court violated former OCGA § 17–8–57 where, in ruling on an objection, the court indicated tha......
-
Patel v. State
...comments] approached impropriety, the court's curative instructions dispelled any lingering intimations"); Chapman v. State, 217 Ga. App. 264, 265(2), 457 S.E.2d 206 (1995) (raising, but not reaching, "the issue of whether curative instructions given to the jury by the court can avoid the h......
-
Brown v. State
...S.E.2d 484 (1984). 3. Banks v. State, 191 Ga.App. 344, 345(3), 381 S.E.2d 548 (1989). 4. OCGA § 17-8-57. 5. See Chapman v. State, 217 Ga.App. 264(1), 457 S.E.2d 206 (1995); Jones v. State, 189 Ga.App. 232(1), 375 S.E.2d 648 6. Eubanks v. State, 240 Ga. 544, 547(2), 242 S.E.2d 41 (1978); see......
-
Crenshaw v. State, A17A0717
...and did not amount to a comment on the evidence that would prejudice the accused or benefit the State.); cf. Chapman v. State, 217 Ga.App. 264, 264-265 (1), 457 S.E.2d 206 (1995) (Where the prosecutor asked a police officer about the victim's response to a photographic line-up, the defense ......