Gilmore v. State, s. 66551
| Decision Date | 21 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | 66554,Nos. 66551,s. 66551 |
| Citation | 168 Ga.App. 76,308 S.E.2d 232 |
| Parties | GILMORE v. The STATE. McMICKENS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael H. Lane, Riverdale, for appellants.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Harvey W. Moskowitz, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Richard L. Gilmore and Marjorie McMickens were jointly tried at a common trial. Gilmore was convicted of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act in that he sold a quantity of THC (phencyclidine) to an undercover agent. At the same time and same place, McMickens sold a quantity of marijuana to the same undercover agent and that sale resulted in her conviction of the Controlled Substances Act. Both appellants were sentenced to six years on probation, with Gilmore receiving, in addition, a $2,500 fine and McMickens a $900 fine. Though each appellant filed a separate appeal, the sole issue is identical in each case and rests upon the same facts and law. Accordingly, the two appeals have been consolidated in this one opinion. Held:
The evidence shows that an informer took an undercover agent to the home occupied by McMickens and Gilmore. The informer introduced the agent to both McMickens and Gilmore and then went to another part of the house while the drug transactions took place. The agent positively identified McMickens as the person from whom he purchased marijuana and Gilmore as the person from whom he purchased THC. After both sales were completed, the informer returned to the room and the informer and the agent departed. No further transactions occurred involving the agent, the informer, or either of the appellants until several months later when the same agent went to the McMickens' house and arrested both McMickens and Gilmore for the earlier sales. Both appellants now assert error by the trial court in refusing to force the state to disclose the identity of the informer or to examine information concerning the informer in camera to ascertain if the informer might have observed the asserted sales and thus could furnish potentially exculpatory evidence. There is no contention other than a speculative possibility that the informer in fact witnessed the sales or overheard any conversation. Both appellants deny ever having seen the undercover agent until the day of the arrest and deny that they were ever involved in the sale of drugs.
Where a person merely takes an undercover agent to a location and identifies or introduces the agent to a seller of drugs,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgeway v. State
...under all the facts and circumstances.' [Cit.]" Childs v. State, 158 Ga.App. 376, 280 S.E.2d 401 (1981). See also Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga.App. 76, 77, 308 S.E.2d 232 (1983). Here, where appellant did not plead entrapment and "where it appears that disclosure of the informant's identity wou......
-
Bannister v. State
...Connally v. State, 237 Ga. 203, 208, 227 S.E.2d 352; Moore v. State, supra 187 Ga.App. at 390, 370 S.E.2d 511; Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga.App. 76, 77, 308 S.E.2d 232. Reapplying the balancing test, we adhere to our Motion for reconsideration denied. ...
-
Moore v. State
...Statiras v. State, 170 Ga.App. 739, 740, 318 S.E.2d 156; accord Carver v. State, 175 Ga.App. 599(1), 333 S.E.2d 697; Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga.App. 76, 77, 308 S.E.2d 232 (also opining that "[w]here the disclosure of the informant's identity would at best serve only to furnish possible impea......
-
Carver v. State
...of the agent's testimony, disclosure is not appropriate considering the overriding rule of nondisclosure ..." Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga.App. 76, 77, 308 S.E.2d 232 (1983). The evidence of the other offense was properly admitted as probative of identity and criminal intent, without requiring ......