Childs v. State, A91A1464
| Decision Date | 15 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1464,A91A1464 |
| Citation | 202 Ga.App. 488,414 S.E.2d 714 |
| Parties | CHILDS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Short, Fowler & Castellow, Lester M. Castellow, Moultrie, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty. and Charles M. Stines, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant appeals from his conviction of burglary by a jury and the resulting sentence.
On October 3, 1990, the front door, window and interior jewelry case of a jewelry store in Moultrie, Georgia, were shattered by a concrete block and a brick. The owner and an employee of the store both testified at trial that several gold chains were missing from the shattered jewelry case. On October 8, 1990, a police officer recovered gold chains from two persons, Kenneth Weaver ("Weaver") and Ricardo Morales ("Morales"), who both testified at trial. Weaver stated that he saw appellant shortly after midnight on October 3, 1990, at an apartment building where appellant was peddling gold chains in a crowd of people. Weaver testified that appellant had several gold chains and Weaver stated that he took one of the chains when appellant was not looking. Weaver identified a chain admitted into evidence as being very similar to the one he took from appellant. Weaver also stated that he had told a police officer prior to trial that appellant looked as if he had busted something with his hand. Morales testified that he, too, was in the crowd at the apartments when appellant was selling gold chains and that he purchased chains from appellant at that time. He identified other gold chains admitted into evidence as the chains that he obtained from appellant. Morales could not recall the exact date on which he saw appellant with the chains, nor could he recall if appellant had any injury to his hand. Both Weaver and Morales testified that the other one was present in the crowd around appellant. The owner and the employee of the jewelry store testified that the chains recovered from Weaver and Morales and admitted into evidence were chains taken from the jewelry store, yet on crossexamination they admitted that there were no identifying numbers or markings on the chains and that other jewelry stores could carry identical chains.
1. Appellant first enumerates as error the trial court's decision to admit evidence of a prior crime of appellant. At trial, the state introduced evidence of a guilty plea of appellant to the crime of criminal damage to property which occurred in May 1987. Witnesses testified that this crime involved damage to the front glass window of another jewelry store in Moultrie which is located in the vicinity of the store involved in the instant case. In the previous incident, a concrete block was thrown against the front window of the store. The window, being made of a special material, did not break, and no entry to the store was obtained. Before evidence of similar crimes is admissible, " ' Carter v. State, 192 Ga.App. 726, 729(8), 386 S.E.2d 389 (1989). Further, " '[e]vidence of similar crimes is admissible where its relevance to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct, outweighs its prejudicial impact.' " Id. Both conditions are satisfied in the instant case. Appellant admitted that he was the perpetrator of the independent crime, and the circumstances of the two crimes are sufficiently similar such that the relevance of the independent crime to show plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct outweighs any prejudice that may have resulted from its admission. Appellant argues that the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighed its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. State
...show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct, outweighs its prejudicial impact." ' Id. " Childs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 488(1), 489, 414 S.E.2d 714. (Emphasis In the case sub judice, the State was allowed to prove that defendant was arrested in March 1980 after givi......
-
Malcolm v. State
...and identity in the present case outweighed any prejudice. See Campbell v. State, supra at 132, 214 S.E.2d 656; Childs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 488, 489(1), 414 S.E.2d 714 (1992); Freese v. State, 196 Ga.App. 761, 763(3), 396 S.E.2d 922 (1990); Roney v. State, 192 Ga.App. 760, 763(2), 386 S.E.......
-
Waugh v. State
...was properly admitted as relevant and probative similar transactions evidence. See Williams v. State, supra; Childs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 488, 489(1), 414 S.E.2d 714 (1992); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 290(2), 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991). Evidence that appellant had thrown a garbage can fro......
-
Gill v. State, A97A2347
...mere fact the police recognize or know where a defendant lives does not place that defendant's character in issue. Childs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 488, 489(2), 414 S.E.2d 714. On appeal, appellant enumerated that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion because the testimony was "a......