Estevez v. State

• Decision Date: 16 October 1973
• Docket Number: No. 48160,2,3,Nos. 1,48160,s. 1
• Citation: 202 S.E.2d 686,130 Ga.App. 215
• Parties: Daniel ESTEVEZ v. The STATE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 686

202 S.E.2d 686

130 Ga.App. 215

Daniel ESTEVEZ v. The STATE.

No. 48160.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2, 3.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied, Nov. 9, 1973.

Garland & Garland, John A. Nuckolls, Atlanta, for apellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Dennis S. Mackin, Morris H. Rosenberg, Carter Goode, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

QUILLIAN, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted on two counts, one for possession of cocaine and the other of unlawfully offering cocaine for sale. The defendant filed an appeal and the case is here for review. held:

1. Enumeration of errors numbers 6, 7 and 8 contend it was error to admit in evidence a bag of marijuana and also in not giving special instructions to the jury in regard to this evidence. There was no request made for special instructions to be given the jury. Conley v. State, 73 Ga.App. 53(4), 35 S.E.2d 569. There was no objection made when a detective testified that he found the 'suspected marijuana' in the kitchenette of the appellant's room. It was not error to admit the exhibit, since substantially the same evidence was admitted without objection. Whippler v. State, 218 Ga. 198, 126 S.E.2d 744; Cummings v. State, 226 Ga. 46, 172 S.E.2d 395; Robinson v. State, 229 Ga. 14, 16, 189 S.E.2d 53.

2. The defendant argues that it was error for the trial court not to require the state to produce an informer who was a witness to the transaction which resulted in the appellant's arrest. While it is true that the informant was a witness to the transaction, the informant's testimony was not essential to the defendant's conviction. The fact that the informant is a witness is not controlling where such evidence is not necessary to obtain a conviction. United States ex rel. Abbott v. Twomey, 7 Cir., 460 F.2d 400, 402(2). In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62, 77 S.Ct. 623, 628, 1 L.Ed.2d 639, it is stated: 'We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors.' In the case sub judice no error was committed by refusing to require the state to produce the informer.

3. The defendant contends: 'The trial court erred in submitting both counts of the indictment against appellant to the jury where the contraband or evidence allegedly possessed by appellant in Count 1 (State's Exhibit #2) was the same evidence upon which the charge of selling (Count 2) was based; all arising out of the same transaction, in violation of Code Ann. § 26-506 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1267).' With the defendant's contention we agree. In Burns v. State, 127 Ga.App. 828, 195 S.E.2d 189, it was held: 'The contention of the defendant is that the possession and sale of marijuana on the same day and the possession and sale of heroin on the same day merged, and that the court thus erred in charging the jury that it might convict the defendant of separate counts and in thereafter entering judgment against the defendant on the separate counts and sentencing him on the separate counts. Defendant contended there was a merger of several of the crimes charged. 'When the same conduct of an accused may establish the commission of more than one crime, the accused may be prosecuted for each crime. He may not, however, be convicted of more than one crime if (1) one crime is included in the other, or (2) the crimes differ only in that one is defined to prohibit a designated kind of conduct generally and the other to prohibit a specific instance of such conduct.' § 26-506, 506, Criminal Code of Georgia (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1267). The offense of sale of marijuana and heroin necessarily included the offense of possession of marijuana and heroin, that is, unless the evidence showed they were on different occasions on the same date. But in this instance the evidence showed that there was a merger of certain of the counts of possession and sale; thus, under the Criminal Code the doctrine of merger is still the law in this state. See Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142(4), 146, 173 S.E.2d 110; Gary v. State, 122 Ga.App. 151(2), 176 S.E.2d 478; Wells v. State, 126 Ga.App. 130(2), 190 S.E.2d 106.' The conviction and judgment as to Count 1 of the indictment must be set aside. Roberts v. State, 228 Ga. 298, 185 S.E.2d 385.

4. The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury in regard to reducible felonies. Code Ann. § 26-3101 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1334). We therefore reverse with direction that another jury be impaneled for the purpose of determining sentence. Morrison v. State, 126 Ga.App. 1, 4, 189 S.E.2d 864; Miller v. State, 224 Ga. 627, 163 S.E.2d 730.

5. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment reversed with direction.

BELL, C.J., and CLARK and STOLZ, JJ., concur.

EVANS, J., concurs specially.

HALL and EBERHARDT, P.JJ., and PANNELL and DEEN, JJ., dissent.

EVANS, Judge (concurring specially).

In Division 3 of the majority opinion it is held that Count 1 of the indictment (possession of illegal drugs) is merged with Court 2 (offering illegal drugs for sale). In other words, it is held in effect that defendant could not have offered the drugs for sale unless the possessed same. In the case of Ansley v. State and Petree v. State, 124 Ga.App. 670, 185 S.E.2d 562, I wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion (pp. 677-687, 185 S.E.2d p. 562), in which I undertook to convince my eight associates on this court that there was a merger of offenses in that case, but without success. Count 1 charged defendants unlawfully solicited a bribe to use his influence and obtain his vote to secure passing of a certain zoning resolution; which Count 2 charged defendants unlawfully solicited a bribe to attempt to procure passage of legislation before the Board of Aldermen as to the same zoning resolution.

Of course, there was no difference whatever between the two counts, as 'using his influence and...