Harrison v. State, A01A2204.

• Decision Date: 09 January 2002
• Docket Number: No. A01A2204.,A01A2204.
• Citation: 558 S.E.2d 760,253 Ga. App. 179
• Parties: HARRISON v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

558 S.E.2d 760

253 Ga. App. 179

HARRISON v. The STATE.

No. A01A2204.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

January 9, 2002.

William L. Jones, La Grange, for appellant.

Peter J. Skandalakis, Dist. Atty., Charles P. Boring, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

ELLINGTON, Judge.

A Troup County grand jury indicted Dewayne Harrison, Rafeal Jermaine Chambers, and Thaxter Lemont Swindle on charges of armed robbery and aggravated assault in connection with a May 31, 1998 shooting. Swindle pled guilty to robbery by force and testified against Chambers and Harrison, who were tried together. A jury convicted Chambers and Harrison of aggravated assault, OCGA § 16-5-21. See Chambers v. State, 244 Ga.App. 138, 534 S.E.2d 879 (2000). Harrison appeals, challenging the admission of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Briefly, the State's evidence showed that, at a private party, the three men discussed robbing the victim because he was carrying a lot of money, that they left the party with the victim in a borrowed car, and that, during the course of robbing the victim, Harrison shot and wounded him.

1. Harrison contends the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statement. A custodial statement is admissible only if it was made "voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury." OCGA § 24-3-50. "To determine whether the state has proven that a confession was made voluntarily, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances." ( Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gober v. State, 264 Ga. 226, 228(2)(b), 443 S.E.2d 616 (1994). See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). "The trial court sits as the factfinder in a Jackson-Denno hearing, and its resolution of factual issues will be upheld by the appellate court unless it is clearly erroneous." (Citation omitted.) York v. State, 242 Ga.App. 281, 292(6), 528 S.E.2d 823 (2000). A statement may be voluntary even where, as here, the suspect has a limited education. Rachel v. State, 247 Ga. 130, 132-133(2), 274 S.E.2d 475 (1981); Gilham v. State, 232 Ga.App. 237, 239-240(2), 501 S.E.2d 586 (1998); Newsome v. State, 180 Ga.App. 243, 244(3), 348 S.E.2d 759 (1986).

Harrison contends the investigating officers advised him of his rights after interviewing him, rather than before, and failed to inquire into his educational background. We have reviewed the investigators' testimony at the Jackson-Denno hearing and find no support for Harrison's assertion that the trial court refused to consider evidence impeaching the officers' credibility. Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's conclusion that the custodial statement was made freely and voluntarily was not clearly erroneous. Satterwhite v. State, 250 Ga.App. 313, 315-316(1), 551 S.E.2d 428 (2001).

2. Harrison contends the trial court erred in admitting a letter attributed to him in that the State did not lay a proper foundation as to the letter's authenticity. Swindle, the intended recipient of the letter, testified that he recognized Harrison's handwriting and that he believed Harrison wrote the letter.

Proof of handwriting may be resorted to in the absence of direct evidence of execution. In such case, any witness who shall swear that he knows or would recognize the handwriting shall be competent to testify as to his belief. The source of his knowledge shall be a question for investigation and shall go entirely to the credit and weight of his evidence.

OCGA § 24-7-6. The trial court did not err in admitting the letter. Summerour v. State, 211 Ga.App. 65(1), 438 S.E.2d 176 (1993).

3. Harrison contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to put his character in issue by eliciting testimony that he exchanged crack cocaine to borrow the car used in the commission of the crime. At trial, Harrison objected to the testimony on relevance grounds.

Surrounding circumstances constituting part of the res gestae may always be shown to the jury along with the principal fact, and their admissibility is within the discretion of the trial court. The fact that such part of the res gestae incidentally placed [Harrison's] character in issue does not render it inadmissible. A trial judge's determination that evidence offered as part of the res gestae is sufficiently informative and reliable as to warrant being considered will not be disturbed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Veal v. State, 242 Ga.App. 873, 875-876(3), 531 S.E.2d 422 (2000). Evidence as to whether a defendant possessed drugs at the time a crime was committed is deemed part of the res gestae and is admissible as such even though it may incidentally place the defendant's character in evidence. Roberts v. State, 221 Ga.App. 196, 198(2), 471 S.E.2d 27 (1996). "Moreover, it is highly probable that this evidence did not contribute to the verdict in light of the overwhelming evidence of [Harrison's] guilt." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cox v. State, 242 Ga.App. 334, 339(9), 528 S.E.2d 871 (2000) (evidence that defendants had been using...