Griggs v. State
Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
Docket Number | No. A93A0706,A93A0706 |
Parties | GRIGGS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenn Zell, Rodney S. Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Peter J. Skandalakis, Dist. Atty., Lynda S. Engel, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Griggs and co-defendant Moss were jointly charged, via indictment, with selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Co-defendant Moss entered a guilty plea and defendant Griggs was tried before a jury. The evidence adduced at a jury trial revealed the following:
At about 6:00 p.m. on February 10, 1992, Special Agent Darrell Bernard Chaneyfield of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and a confidential informant went to defendant's home to consummate a pre-arranged undercover drug buy. Defendant [. At 6:15 p.m., Special Agent Chaneyfield and the confidential informant returned and co-defendant "Shawn Moss opened the door and let [Special Agent Chaneyfield and the confidential informant] inside the residence [and] back into a small area like a kitchen...." Defendant Griggs, co-defendant Moss and special agent Chaneyfield sat at the kitchen table. The confidential informant remained standing. Special Agent Chaneyfield then "asked Mr. Moss for the cocaine and he handed [the special agent] the cocaine which was in a white paper towel and ... had a cookie shape form." The special agent After negotiating over price, Agent Chaneyfield "handed [co-defendant Moss] the money and [Moss] handed [over] the cocaine." Special Agent Chaneyfield then
Defendant was found guilty of selling cocaine and this appeal followed. Held:
1. In his first three enumerations, defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to authorize a finding that he was a party to the crime of selling cocaine.
Smith v. State, 188 Ga.App. 415, 416(1), 373 S.E.2d 97. In the case sub judice, Special Agent Chaneyfield testified that defendant informed the confidential informant that he was ready to consummate the drug transaction and that he needed ten minutes to retrieve the cocaine. Special Agent Chaneyfield further testified that defendant was present, before, during and after the drug buy and that defendant gave him specific instructions on how to conceal the cocaine. This evidence reveals that defendant was more than a mere bystander to the illegal drug transaction. It sufficiently authorizes the jury's finding that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of being a party to the crime of selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Jackson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 636(1), 638, 388 S.E.2d 881.
2. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance based on a defense witness' failure to appear at trial.
After voir dire, defense counsel moved for a continuance based on the absence of defense witness Glen Moore. Defense counsel stated that Moore resides in Homestead, Florida, and that the witness is not in court because of a home emergency brought on by the destruction of a Florida hurricane. Defense counsel stated that Moore witnessed the drug deal and that Moore "will testify that [defendant] Griggs had nothing to do with this sales transaction." However, defense counsel admitted that he did not subpoena...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lafavor v. State, A15A0902.
...justified by defendant's failure to satisfy requirements that witness could be procured by next term of court); Griggs v. State,208 Ga.App. 768, 769–70(2), 432 S.E.2d 591 (1993)(ruling that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance given that defendant could not show t......
-
Grace v. State
...from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Griggs v. State, 208 Ga.App. 768, 769(1), 432 S.E.2d 591 (1993); Tucker v. State, 205 Ga.App. 683, 684, 423 S.E.2d 422 (1992). Further, a person is a party to a crime and may be char......
-
Nelson v. State
...Williams, "there is no basis for overruling the trial court's discretion in denying the motion for continuance." Griggs v. State, 208 Ga.App. 768, 770(2), 432 S.E.2d 591 (1993). 7. Next, Nelson argues that the trial court erred in admitting his statement to the police because it was not fre......
-
K.B., In Interest of, A96A1188
...from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.' (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Griggs v. State, 208 Ga.App. 768, 769(1), 432 S.E.2d 591 (1993); Tucker v. State, 205 Ga.App. 683, 684, 423 S.E.2d 422 (1992). Further, a person is a party to a crime and may be char......