Furlow v. State, 68678
| Decision Date | 11 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68678,68678 |
| Citation | 322 S.E.2d 317,172 Ga.App. 185 |
| Parties | FURLOW v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Carl P. Greenberg, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Richard E. Hicks, Alfred D. Dixon, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee. SOGNIER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping and filed the instant appeal.
Dewitt Canon, a taxicab driver, picked up as fares appellant and another man. After directing Canon where to go, appellant's companion put a gun to Canon's head and robbed him of his money, watch and other personal items. Canon was then forced into the trunk of his taxicab, and appellant and his companion drove around Atlanta. The police, who had been alerted by the cab company dispatcher that Canon might be in trouble, spotted Canon's taxicab and pursued it. Appellant and his companion jumped out of the cab and ran; appellant was apprehended and searched at the scene. Canon's watch and cigarette lighter were in appellant's pocket. When the police learned from the dispatcher that the driver was an elderly white male, they got the keys from the taxicab, opened the trunk, and found Canon. Although appellant claimed he was a passenger in the taxicab driven by a black male and did not rob or kidnap Canon, Canon positively identified appellant as one of the two persons who robbed and kidnapped him. The two police officers who apprehended appellant identified him as the person driving Canon's taxicab when they were pursuing him.
1. Appellant contends the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. We find the evidence more than sufficient to meet the standards of proof required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance or a mistrial on the ground that he was not furnished a copy of appellant's statement to the police, as requested, prior to trial. In this regard, when appellant was apprehended, he was not questioned by the arresting officers. However, appellant was screaming Appellant argues that under the provisions of OCGA § 17-7-210 it was error to allow these oral statements into evidence.
OCGA § 17-7-210(a) provides that at least 10 days prior to trial a defendant shall be entitled to a copy of any statement given by him while in police custody, upon timely written request made within a reasonable time prior to trial. OCGA § 17-7-210(d) provides that if the defendant's statement is oral, "no relevant and material (incriminating or inculpatory)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Awtrey v. State
...for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the crime of kidnapping. Furlow v. State, 172 Ga.App. 185, 186(1), 322 S.E.2d 317 (1984); Peavy v. State, 159 Ga.App. 280, 282(1)(b), 283 S.E.2d 346 3. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's fai......
-
Hudgins v. State
...incriminating nor exculpatory, the State was not required to furnish appellant a summary of his oral statements. Furlow v. State, 172 Ga.App. 185, 186(2), 322 S.E.2d 317 (1984). Accordingly, it was not error to deny appellant's motion in limine on these 2. Appellant's third and fourth enume......
-
Valdez v. State, A89A1074
...question did not fall within the ambit of OCGA § 17-7-210 because it was not incriminating or inculpatory. See Furlow v. State, 172 Ga.App. 185, 186(2), 322 S.E.2d 317 (1984). As for the Brady motion, "a defendant's own statements to police are not unknown to defendant and are not subject t......
-
Williamson v. State, 76994
...not be furnished to a defendant. See OCGA 17-7-210(d); Hudgins v. State, 176 Ga.App. 719(1), 337 S.E.2d 378 (1985); Furlow v. State, 172 Ga.App. 185(2), 322 S.E.2d 317 (1984); Howell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 445(4), 295 S.E.2d 329 (1982). The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony ......