Fluellen v. State
Decision Date | 10 September 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 63985,63985 |
Citation | 294 S.E.2d 653,163 Ga.App. 425 |
Parties | FLUELLEN v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
W. Dennis Mullis, Cochran, for appellant.
James L. Wiggins, Dist. Atty., James E. Turk, Asst. Dist. Atty., Eastman, for appellee.
Armed robbery and kidnapping.
1. Appellant enumerated as error the court's failure to grant his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and the denial of his motion for a new trial based on the general grounds. However, he has presented no argument or citation of authority in support of these enumerations of error. Accordingly, we consider these enumerations abandoned pursuant to Rule 15(c)(2) of this court. (Code Ann. § 24-3615(c)(2)). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the transcript and find that the evidence meets the requirements of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
2. Appellant moved to sever the armed robbery charges from the kidnapping charge on the ground that the evidence would be confusing to the jury, causing a possible misapplication of the law to the evidence presented. Appellant contends the denial of this motion was error.
Our Supreme Court has held that Coats v. State, 234 Ga. 659, 662(4), 217 S.E.2d 260 (1975). The evidence in the instant case is not confusing, as the two armed robberies occurred at a Flash Food store, and the kidnapping occurred at a later time in a different location, after appellant and his companion had fled on foot from the food market. Hence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to sever.
3. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress any testimony or evidence of a pretrial identification of appellant by Nancy Burris and Police Officer Hicks at a photographic lineup. However, the state presented no evidence or testimony that Burris or Hicks picked appellant out of a photographic lineup. Thus, any alleged error regarding denial of appellant's motion to suppress is moot.
4. Appellant next contends the trial court erred by failing to require the jury to return to the jury room for further deliberation on the verdict after one of the jurors, when polled on the verdict, stated she was a little confused on charge three (kidnapping). This enumeration is without merit.
After the juror's statement, she stated that she had voted yes (to convict) on the third count, and that she still voted yes. Further, appellant raised no objection at the time of the juror's statement, did not ask that the jury be returned to the deliberation room for a new vote and took no exception to the trial court's procedure. It is well settled that matters not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. State, 75382
...the law intelligently as to each offense.' [Cit.]" Coats v. State, 234 Ga. 659, 662(4), 217 S.E.2d 260 (1975); Fluellen v. State, 163 Ga.App. 425(2), 294 S.E.2d 653 (1982). Where the modus operandi of the perpetrator is so strikingly alike that it demonstrates and designates the defendant a......
-
Dobbs v. State
...Wilson, supra 188 Ga.App. at 780, 374 S.E.2d 325. In such cases, severance lies within the discretion of the court. Fluellen v. State, 163 Ga.App. 425, 294 S.E.2d 653 (1982). In the instant case, the armed robberies involved two convenience stores and took place less than one month apart. I......
-
Woods v. State, A90A0715
...the law intelligently as to each offense." (Cit.)' Coats v. State, 234 Ga. 659, 662(4), 217 S.E.2d 260 (1975); Fluellen v. State, 163 Ga.App. 425(2), 294 S.E.2d 653 (1982). Where the modus operandi of the perpetrator is so strikingly alike that it demonstrates and designates the defendant a......
-
Cook v. State, 72566
...Parks v. State, 254 Ga. 403(4), 330 S.E.2d 686 (1985); Spivey v. State, 253 Ga. 187(16), 319 S.E.2d 420 (1984); Fluellen v. State, 163 Ga.App. 425(5), 294 S.E.2d 653 (1982); Richards v. State, 157 Ga.App. 601(1), 278 S.E.2d 63 (1981). Even if the testimony concerning the stabbing and beatin......