Davis v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. A91A0573,A91A0573
• Citation: Davis v. State, 406 S.E.2d 555, 200 Ga.App. 44 (Ga. App. 1991)
• Parties: DAVIS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 555

406 S.E.2d 555

200 Ga.App. 44

DAVIS v. The STATE.

No. A91A0573.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 11, 1991.

H.B. Edwards III, Valdosta, for appellant.

H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Bradfield M. Shealy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

Appellant was charged and convicted of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (two counts) and various traffic offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-30(d) for a conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and received four twelve-month sentences for the remaining drug count and each of the traffic offenses. He appeals his conviction and life sentence raising five enumerations of error.

While on routine patrol in a marked police car, an officer observed a car travelling without taillights. He turned on his blue lights and siren and attempted to stop the vehicle; however, the car sped up. The officer chased the car for approximately three-quarters of a mile, reaching speeds up to 60 mph in a 35 mph zone, until the vehicle finally stopped, and appellant jumped out of the driver's side and approached the officer at the rear of the car. The officer requested appellant's driver's license and proof of insurance, which were in the glove compartment. When appellant opened the passenger-side door to get the documents, a glue tube containing six small pieces of crack cocaine and several plastic bags containing marijuana fell out of the car and onto the ground. Appellant and a passenger, who was seated in the front seat, were arrested and tried jointly.

1. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's failure to grant his motion in limine and the admission of his prior conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. " 'Evidence 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.' [Cit.] Before such evidence may be admitted, however, there must be evidence the defendant was the perpetrator of the independent crime and sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cit.] Under the circumstances of this appeal, these conditions were satisfied, and the trial court did not err by admitting this evidence." Harris v. State, 196 Ga.App. 796(4), 397 S.E.2d 68 (1990).

2. In his second and third enumerations of error appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing the arresting officer to testify regarding his approximately 30 prior drug arrests, in qualifying the officer as an expert witness on the "uses and activities of drugs on the street and how they are dealt" and in allowing the officer to state his opinion as to the amount of cocaine a person could possess for distribution purposes. The officer testified, based upon his training and experience working on the street, that the amount of cocaine discovered would generally be for distribution, as opposed to personal use. Appellant maintains that the question of whether the six pieces of crack cocaine were for personal use or distribution was not beyond the ken of the average layman and that although the jury was charged on both simple possession and possession with intent to distribute, such testimony was an improper statement of the ultimate fact which invaded the province of the jury and led the jury to convict on the greater offense. We disagree.

" ' "To qualify as an expert ... generally all that is required is that a person must have been educated in a particular skill or profession: his special knowledge may be derived from experience as well as study. (Cits.) Formal education in the subject at hand is not a prerequisite for expert status." [Cits.]' [Cit.] 'It is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge as to whether a witness has such learning and experience in a particular area to be deemed expert. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Washington v. State, 194 Ga.App. 756(1), 391 S.E.2d 718 (1990). The officer's testimony that he was a 13-year veteran with the City of Quitman Police Department, having made between 20 and 30 drug arrests,...