Garrett v. State, 76402
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76402,76402 |
| Citation | 372 S.E.2d 506,188 Ga.App. 176 |
| Parties | GARRETT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Steve Bennett, for appellant.
Stephen F. Lanier, Dist. Atty., Pamela H. Sellers, Fred R. Simpson, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendant appeals his convictions for child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4, and sodomy, OCGA § 16-6-2.
1. Defendant contends that he was entitled to a mistrial because the prosecution in its opening statement made reference to acts of the defendant towards the victim which, although the prosecutor did not expressly so state, would in law constitute rape, a crime with which he was not charged. This enumeration of error is meritless, for a number of reasons, one of which is that the State-anticipated evidence referred to was within the scope of the crimes charged, so that mention of it was not cause for mistrial.
Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 598(6), 351 S.E.2d 625 (1987). Bradberry v. State, 170 Ga. 859(2), 154 S.E. 344 (1930); Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 409, 46 S.E. 897 (1903).
2. Defendant asserts he was entitled to mistrial because of the State's opening statement and introduction of evidence via the examining physician's testimony that defendant committed similar acts against the victim on previous occasions, because he was not notified prior to the trial as required by USCR 31.3.
Because the date alleged in the indictment was not an essential averment, evidence of similar acts occurring within the statute of limitation was evidence of the crime charged and did not fall within the ambit of the rule relating to notice of the State's intention to present evidence of similar transactions. Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 (1987). Pittman v. State, 179 Ga.App. 760(1), 348 S.E.2d 107 (1986). Mistrial was not warranted.
3. Defendant's last enumeration of error is that he could not be convicted of both sodomy and child molestation because child molestation is a lesser included offense of sodomy.
"OCGA § 16-6-4(a) is not a lesser included offense of OCGA § 16-6-2, as a matter of law...." Hill v. State, 183 Ga.App. 654, 658(4), 360 S.E.2d 4 (1987). If both convictions were based upon the same, single act, only one conviction could stand. McCollum v. State, 177 Ga.App. 40(1), 338 S.E.2d 460 (1985). However, the indictment as drawn charged defendant specifically with two separate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...211 Ga.App. 837, 838(1), 440 S.E.2d 725 (1994); Nolton v. State, 196 Ga.App. 690, 691(1), 396 S.E.2d 605 (1990); Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176, 177(2), 372 S.E.2d 506 (1988); Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 Further, where molestation, incest, or even rape occurs repea......
-
Foreman v. State
...indictment. Clearly this testimony constituted evidence of the offense charged and was thus admissible. See, e.g., Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176(2), 372 S.E.2d 506 (1988); Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197(2), 361 S.E.2d 58 (1987). Likewise, we cannot say that defendant was harmed by ref......
-
Kirkland v. State
...at trial. [Cit.] This is true even if the defendant's character is incidentally placed in issue.' [Cits.]" Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176 (1), 372 S.E.2d 506 (1988). " '[I]f the separate crime was committed as a part of the same transaction as that for which the accused is being tried, a......
-
Murphy v. State, A90A0079
...that the testimony concerned offenses which occurred within the period of limitations, Rule 31.3 does not apply. Garrett v. State, 188 Ga.App. 176, 177, 372 S.E.2d 506; Bowman v. State, 184 Ga.App. 197, 361 S.E.2d 58. Moreover, to the extent that this enumeration concerns other evidence, we......