Craig v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48901,No. 3,48901,3 |
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 307,130 Ga.App. 689 |
| Parties | Harlan CRAIG v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, Wm. Ralph Hill, Jr., LaFayette, for appellant.
Samuel J. Brantley, Dist. Atty., Dalton, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Harlan Craig was indicted in six counts for the illegal possession of drugs-three counts for possession of dangerous drugs in violation of the Dangerous Drug Act, Code Ann. § 79A-701 et seq. (Ga.L.1967, pp. 296, 323), and three counts for possessing abuse drugs in violation of the Drug Abuse Control Act, Code Ann. § 79A-901 et seq. (Ga.L.1967, pp. 296, 343). It appears from the evidence that at a late hour on the night of February 24, 1973 he was driving a Buick automobile borrowed from a friend, and that Deputy Sheriff Groover saw the car weaving across the center line and back to the shoulder of the street, stopped him, asked to see his driver's license and finding his movements to be unco-ordinated and insecure and his eyes failing to focus, concluded that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and, after patting him down and discovering a bulge in his jacket pocket, took him to jail. There Craig was searched and drugs were found in his pockets. Officer Groover then returned to the car, searched it and found a loaf of bread on the back seat, which he discovered to have been hollowed out and packages of drugs inserted.
Groover took the drugs to the jail, marked them for identification as he likewise did with those removed from Craig's pocket, and sealed them all in a manila envelope for transmission to the Crime Laboratory and for preservation as evidence. They were locked up until removed two days after the arrest for delivery to Deputy Sheriff Wells, who took them to the crime laboratory for analysis. Miss Churchill, a chemist at the laboratory, analyzed the drugs, made a report thereon in accord with the laboratory regulations, and testified at the trial that she received the sealed, unopened package of drugs from Deputy Wells. She identified a copy of her report and, identifying samples of each of the various kinds of drugs in the package, testified as to what her analysis had revealed them to be. Drugs of the type described in each count of the indictment, save Count 2, were identified as having been in the parcel which Deputy Groover had sent by Deputy Wells to the laboratory. The defendant testified, denying that he had any drugs on the occasion of the arrest or that he had been under the influence of drugs or of alcohol. Because of lack of proof as to Count 2, a verdict of not guilty on it was directed, and a general verdict of guilty on all other counts was returned.
Defendant now appeals, enumerating as error (1) overruling of his motion for new trial, which was on the general grounds only, (2) admission of the state's exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 (the drugs as identified by Deputy Groover and Miss Churchill) on the ground that the chain of custody had not been shown prior to their introduction in evidence, (3) admission of an uncertified copy of Miss Churchill's report of the results of analyzing the drugs, and (4) failure to declare a mistrial because of remarks of the district attorney. Held:
1. There is ample evidence upon which the jury was authorized to return the verdict of guilty. The general grounds are without merit.
2. (a) The record discloses that the state's exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 (the drugs) were admitted without objection. Consequently, the second enumeration of error is without merit. Brown v. State, 115 Ga.App. 813(1), 156 S.E.2d 180.
(b) The testimony, outlined above, was sufficient to show the chain of their custody and to identify the drugs as being those taken from defendant's person and from the automobile which he was driving, with no one accompanying him. Watson v. State, 93 Ga.App. 368, 91 S.E.2d 832; Moody v. State, 126 Ga.App. 108, 109, 189 S.E.2d 889; Satterfield v. State, 127 Ga.App 528(2), 194 S.E.2d 295; Elrod v. State, 128 Ga.App. 250(1), 196 S.E.2d 360.
3. The chemist with the state crime laboratory who analyzed the drugs, Miss Katherine T. Churchill, identified her official report of findings and a carbon copy of it, signed by her and Dr. J. Byron Dawson, the assistant director of the laboratory. She had both the original and a copy of the report with her. The copy was admitted into evidence and she was thus enabled to take the original back to the laboratory files. A copy had been furnished to defendant's counsel, and he had it before him. Objection to admission of the copy was made on the ground that 'The effect of this would be-the only proof would be this witness' testimony, and would cause the jury to give undue weight to this witness' testimony, although we don't quarrel with the testimony, but I don't think that it's admissible in evidence.'
The objection quoted above Brown v. State, 115 Ga.App. 813(1b), 156 S.E.2d 180, supra.
The objection made was no more than a general one, such as that evidence is prejudicial or inflammatory, and it shows no error. Mincey v. State, 124 Ga.App. 315(1a), 183 S.E.2d 614. Appellant argues in his brief that allowing the copy of the report to go out with the jury afforded undue emphasis to Miss Churchill's testimony, citing Strickland v. State,167 Ga. 452(6), 145 S.E. 879 and Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 49 S.E. 719. But assuming arguendo that this would have been a valid objection to permitting the report to go out with the jury, it does not appear from the record that it did go out and no such objection was made at any time before the trial court. The only objection was that admitting the report into evidence would cause the jury to give undue weight to the witness' testimony. If an objection on that ground were valid it is difficult to conceive how documentary evidence, requiring identification by the witness, could ever be admitted. Such is not the law.
' If the party or his Counsel except to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benefield v. State
...rule, once invoked, is adhered to. Code Ann. § 38-1703; Nance v. State, 123 Ga.App. 410, 181 S.E.2d 295. See also Craig v. State, 130 Ga.App. 689, 692(4), 204 S.E.2d 307. There being no error, there was no need for corrective 5. Enumeration four concerns a statement made by the witness Hall......
-
Ryals v. State
...unless it is supported in the record and shown to have been ruled on by the trial judge." (Emphasis supplied.) Craig v. State, 130 Ga.App. 689, 692-693 (6), 204 S.E.2d 307 (1974). Although under Rule 35(b) of the Rules of this Court, Craig, in and of itself is a physical precedent only, the......
-
Walters v. State
...a scientific report which should not go out under Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452, 460(6), 145 S.E. 879 (1928), and Craig v. State, 130 Ga.App. 689, 204 S.E.2d 307 (1974). Other objections argued here but not presented below will not be Cumulativeness does not provide a mandate for reversa......
-
Brantley v. State, 70257
...for the first time on appeal. See 134 Baker St., Inc. v. State, 172 Ga.App. 738(5), 324 S.E.2d 575 (1984); Craig v. State, 130 Ga.App. 689(3), 204 S.E.2d 307 (1974). Defendant's first two enumerations of error present no ground for 2. Over objections by the defendant, the victim's grandmoth......