Hart v. State, s. 56998
| Decision Date | 03 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 56998,56999,s. 56998 |
| Citation | 256 S.E.2d 127,149 Ga.App. 785 |
| Parties | HART v. The STATE. MOODY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stephen M. Friedberg, Atlanta, for appellants.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, J. Wallace Speed, Victor Alexander, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
The appellants, Moody and Hart, were convicted of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act by selling heroin to an undercover agent. Moody was sentenced to serve 15 years and Hart to serve 10 years. Each appellant appeals the conviction and sentence enumerating identical alleged errors, i. e., that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court improperly allowed evidence of unrelated crimes thereby placing the character of the two appellants impermissibly into evidence. Held :
1. In relation to the first enumeration of error, the facts clearly reflect that the police officer entered the home of Moody; that the officer asked Moody to sell some heroin; Moody nodded assent and Hart obtained the heroin from a bedroom and delivered the packet to the officer, receiving payment therefor. Opposed to this testimony was a denial that a sale took place between appellants and the police officer. Impeaching testimony was offered as to both the officers and the appellants. Thus, the court and jury was faced with the typical swearing match. Appellants concede that questions of credibility rest with the jury but still contend that the demands of justice and equity call for their acquittal.
On appeal, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict, the conflicts must be resolved against the appellant, and if there is any evidence to support the verdict, it must be affirmed. Johnson v. State, 231 Ga. 138(1), 200 S.E.2d 734; Talley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 548, 549, 224 S.E.2d 455. The evidence of the primary issue was in conflict, the jury resolved that issue against the appellants, and the evidence adequately supports the verdict of the jury. Griffin v. State, 237 Ga. 532, 228 S.E.2d 908. There is no merit in this enumeration.
2. In their second enumeration of error, appellants argue that evidence of a previous sale of heroin to another officer either at the same address or under similar circumstances some four or five years earlier was prejudicial. Where the court and jury are faced with the typical "swearing match," evidence of a similar incident not only would be admissible for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fears v. State, 66559
...The court found this to be the "typical swearing match" of a state's witness against the defendant described in Hart v. State, 149 Ga.App. 785, 256 S.E.2d 127. The witness says the defendant committed the offense and the defendant testifies "it wasn't me." 246 Ga. at 655, 272 S.E.2d 321. Th......
-
Millwood v. State
...propensity for knife wielding, which falls within the "bent of mind" exception to the inadmissibility rule. See Hart v. State, 149 Ga.App. 785, 785-786(2), 256 S.E.2d 127 and cases cited, supra. We also find that the trial court issued proper limiting instructions to the jury (which dispels......
-
Johnson v. State
...(1977) (a genuine use of the motive exception made pertinent by the defendant's contention he had been entrapped); Hart v. State, 149 Ga.App. 785, 256 S.E.2d 127 (1979) (the defendant and the state's prime witness engaged in what the opinion describes as a typical swearing match, and the ev......
-
Gray v. State
...bent of mind, or course of conduct.... "We have here involved a case of the 'typical swearing match' as described in Hart v. State, 149 Ga.App. 785, 256 S.E.2d 127 (1979). The police officer testifies the defendant sold him drugs; the defendant says 'It wasn't me.' The jury looking at the p......