Ebenezer v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0744,A89A0744 |
| Citation | 383 S.E.2d 373,191 Ga.App. 901 |
| Parties | EBENEZER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alfred L. King, Jr., for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Deborah Benefield, Albert Collier, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendant was indicted for 17 counts of forgery in the second degree. The evidence adduced at a jury trial revealed that on June 3, 1988, defendant went to an air-express company in College Park, Georgia and posted a package to Walter Omopariola in Lagos, Nigeria. Upon a routine inspection of the package, an employee of the air-express company found 17 counterfeit one hundred dollar bills. Another employee of the air-express company contacted police authorities and, when defendant was approached by law enforcement officers, he fled. Defendant was found guilty on all 17 counts of the indictment and this appeal followed. Held:
1. In his first enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had possession of the forged United States currency with the intent to defraud.
Browning v. State, 174 Ga.App. 759, 760(3), 331 S.E.2d 625. In the case sub judice, defendant's possession of the forged United States currency, his posting of the forged writings and his flight from law enforcement officers was sufficient to authorize the jury's finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant possessed the forged United States currency with the requisite intent to defraud. OCGA § 16-9-2(a). See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Browning v. State, 174 Ga.App. 759(3), 331 S.E.2d 625, supra.
2. Defendant contends in his second enumeration of error that "[t]he trial court erred in failing to construe the indictment as charging one (1) count of forgery instead of seventeen (17) separate counts of forgery ... and in holding that possession of each counterfeit bill is a separate offense." This contention is without merit.
The simultaneous possession of forged documents, when accompanied by the requisite fraudulent intent, constitutes separate offenses. Patterson v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 321(1), 322, 191 S.E.2d 43. See Forbes v. State, 129 Ga.App. 231(2), 199 S.E.2d 548. The evidence adduced at trial in the case sub judice, which included evidence showing that defendant was in possession of 17 counterfeit one hundred dollar bills, was sufficient to support defendant's convictions, beyond a reasonable doubt, for 17 counts of forgery in the second degree. See Division 1 of this opinion.
3. Defendant contends in his third enumeration of error that the trial court erred in finding that a telephone conversation he had with his cousin in Nigeria was inadmissible hearsay.
The trial court sustained the State's objection when defendant attempted to testify as to the content of a telephone conversation defendant had with his cousin in Nigeria, Walter Omopariola. As an offer of proof, defendant testified that Mr. Omopariola contacted him via telephone and requested defendant to purchase equipment in the United States for use by Mr. Omopariola in Nigeria. Defendant also testified that Mr. Omopariola promised to send money for the equipment and that, three weeks after the telephone conversation, defendant received the 17 counterfeit one hundred dollar bills from Mr. Omopariola. Defendant argues that this testimony was not hearsay in that it was offered to explain his conduct in returning the counterfeit money to Mr. Omopariola and that it was harmful to exclude this evidence because it was critical to his sole defense, i.e., lack of intent to defraud. See OCGA § 24-3-2; Momon v. State, 249 Ga. 865, 866, 867, 294 S.E.2d 482.
Pretermitting the question of whether the content of the above telephone conversation was admissible evidence, we find its exclusion harmless since defendant later testified to virtually the same information which was the subject of the above telephone conversation. Clarke v. State, 169 Ga.App. 433(1), 313 S.E.2d 716.
4. In his fourth enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding the content of a telephone conversation he had with an employee of the air-express company. Defendant offered proof that this testimony would "inform the jury what [he] understood that he was to do with respect to the package [that contained the forged United States currency]." We find no harmful error since defendant later testified as to the directions given to him by the employee of the air-express company. Clarke v. State, 169 Ga.App. 433(1), 313 S.E.2d 716, supra.
5. Defendant contends in his fifth enumeration that "[t]he trial court erred in refusing to allow [him] to testify to the return address on an envelope."
Defendant testified that he received an envelope containing the counterfeit one hundred dollar bills through the United States Postal Service during the last week in May 1988. He then testified that the letter containing the counterfeit money "was addressed from Walter--" The State's attorney objected on the grounds that defendant was testifying to the "contents of a document not in evidence." The objection was sustained. Pretermitting the admissibility of this testimony, we find no harmful error since defendant later testified that the counterfeit money was sent to him from his cousin in Nigeria, Walter Omopariola. Clarke v. State, 169 Ga.App. 433(1), 313 S.E.2d 716, supra.
6. Next, defendant contends the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jenks
...as to an essential element is wholly circumstantial. See People v. Ellis (1989), 146 A.D.2d 709, 537 N.Y.S.2d 205; Ebenezer v. State (1989), 191 Ga.App. 901, 383 S.E.2d 373; People v. Moore (1989), 176 Mich.App. 555, 440 N.W.2d California law requires that to justify a conviction on circums......
-
Loveless v. State
...genuine and that [the defendant] tendered one and possessed another for the purpose of defrauding the bar"); Ebenezer v. State , 191 Ga. App. 901, 901 (1), 383 S.E.2d 373 (1989) (affirming conviction for forgery based upon possession of counterfeit currency when "defendant's possession of t......
-
Cannon v. State, S10A1005.
...'(E)vidence wrongfully withheld is harmless where admissible evidence of the same fact is introduced.' [Cit.]" [Cit.]Ebenezer v. State, 191 Ga.App. 901, 902(3), 383 S.E.2d 373 (1989). See also Nix v. State, 280 Ga. 141, 144(4), 625 S.E.2d 746 (2006) (holding that the exclusion of inculpator......
-
Sosebee v. State
...v. State, 226 Ga. 35, 36(2), 172 S.E.2d 424 (1970) (trial court did not err in failing to define "assault"); Ebenezer v. State, 191 Ga.App. 901, 903(7), 383 S.E.2d 373 (1989) (trial court did not err in failing to define "defraud"). Consequently, we find no 3. Sosebee also appeals from an o......