Childs v. State, 61446
| Decision Date | 24 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 61446,61446 |
| Citation | 158 Ga.App. 376,280 S.E.2d 401 |
| Parties | CHILDS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William Ralph Hill, Jr., Lafayette, for appellant.
David L. Lomenick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Roland L. Enloe, Christopher A. Townley, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant brings this appeal from his conviction of selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (Code Ann. Ch. 79A-8, Ga.L.1974, p. 221 et seq.). We affirm.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to compel the state to disclose the identity of the confidential informant whose assistance enabled the state to make its case against appellant. We reject this contention.
"Where (as here) a person merely takes an undercover police officer to a location and identifies, or introduces the officer to the defendant, and the officer arranges for and buys contraband from the defendant, and the person witnesses such sale, or alleged sale, such person is an informer and not a 'decoy' and a disclosure of his name, address, etc., to the defendant is not required as a matter of law under Code Ann. § 38-1102, but rests in the discretion of the trial judge, balancing the rights of the defendant and the rights of the state under all the facts and circumstances." Taylor v. State, 136 Ga.App. 31(2), 220 S.E.2d 49. The record in this case shows that appellant's motion to require disclosure was the subject of a lengthy pretrial hearing, and that the trial court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both sides during the hearing. In our view, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to compel disclosure of the identity of the state's confidential informant.
2. In his third enumeration of error, appellant argues that "(t)he trial judge erred in failing to grant a directed verdict of not guilty at the conclusion of all the evidence upon failure of the State of Georgia to rebut the appellant's defense of entrapment." Appellant contends that the state failed to rebut his testimony that he had been entrapped by agents of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and that he was thus entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. We disagree.
"A distinction must be made between evidence which raises a defense of entrapment and which would require that the jury be charged as to the law of entrapment and the burden of proof thereon, and evidence which, under the standards set out in Code Ann. § 27-1802, would demand a finding of entrapment and, therefore, a directed verdict of acquittal." State v. Royal, 247 Ga. 309, 275 S.E.2d 646 (1981). The evidence presented in the instant case clearly does not demand a finding of entrapment. Portions of appellant's own testimony tended to rebut his entrapment defense. Moreover, the testimony of one of the GBI agents who witnessed the alleged sale further controverted appellant's entrapment defense and provided evidence of appellant's predisposition to deal in drugs. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's failure to grant appellant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
3. In his fourth enumeration of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial as a result of allegedly prejudicial remarks made by the assistant district attorney during his closing argument. Since the record does not contain either a transcript of counsel's closing argument or a stipulation by counsel as to the precise language which appellant now argues required the grant of a mistrial, this contention of error presents nothing for appellate review. See Alexander v. State, 150 Ga.App. 41(3), 256...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgeway v. State
...balancing the rights of the defendant and the rights of the [S]tate under all the facts and circumstances.' [Cit.]" Childs v. State, 158 Ga.App. 376, 280 S.E.2d 401 (1981). See also Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga.App. 76, 77, 308 S.E.2d 232 (1983). Here, where appellant did not plead entrapment a......
- White v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Atlanta, 61426
-
Caithaml v. State
...adduced in the instant case clearly demonstrates that a finding of entrapment was not demanded. See generally Childs v. State, 158 Ga.App. 376(2), 280 S.E.2d 401 (1981). "As in State v. Royal, 247 Ga. 309, 311 , supra, '[t]his is one of those cases in which a question of fact was presented ......
-
Parker v. State, 77671
...we find no error in the trial court's failure to grant appellant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal." Childs v. State, 158 Ga.App. 376(2), 280 S.E.2d 401 (1981). 3. The final issue in this case concerns the alleged improper argument of the prosecuting attorney. Appellant contended......