Haywood v. State, A95A2789
| Decision Date | 10 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A2789,A95A2789 |
| Citation | 469 S.E.2d 206,220 Ga.App. 182 |
| Parties | HAYWOOD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Drug violation. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Winegarden.
David L. Lebowski, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Brian K. Wilcox, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant Haywood appeals his conviction of a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, selling cocaine. Held:
1. The State's evidence shows that defendant sold a "rock" of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The first enumeration of error complains of the admission of certain similar transaction evidence. In the similar transaction case, defendant had entered a plea of nolo contendere and been afforded first offender status which had not been revoked at the time of trial.
Defendant cites England v. State, 214 Ga.App. 275, 447 S.E.2d 654, and particularly Judge Pope's dissent therein, as authority that Georgia law is not clear on the issue of whether a first offender record may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal case. But we reject defendant's statement of the issue. In the case sub judice, the similar transaction evidence was presented as part of the State's case in chief rather than in rebuttal or for purposes of impeachment. The State proved the entire case in the similar transaction matter, including crime laboratory testimony. Thus, the similar transaction evidence was admissible under this Court's decision in Tilley v. State, 197 Ga.App. 97, 98(2), 99, 397 S.E.2d 506.
Defendant presents the additional argument that there was a fundamental difference in the similar transaction incident because the purchasing police officer initiated the transaction with defendant while in the crime charged the defendant spoke first. Both transactions occurred on the same streets of Buford, Georgia, which were known as a drug hot spot, a place for virtually drive-through drug purchases. In both cases, the undercover officer drove into the area and completed small-scale purchases of crack cocaine from defendant who was on foot near the street. We find no significance in whether the officer or defendant spoke first so as to initiate the transaction.
2. Defendant's remaining enumeration of error complains of the trial court's refusal to admit into evidence six exhibits. Four of these exhibits consisted of incident reports, arrest reports, and arrest warrants arising in connection with the present prosecution of defendant or in connection with a case against another individual involving the same undercover police officer making another drug purchase on the same day that he bought contraband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...evidence of the defendant's entry of a first offender guilty plea to the earlier charge was admissible. See also Haywood v. State, 220 Ga.App. 182(1), 469 S.E.2d 206 (1996), where the Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of evidence establishing a similar prior bad act for which the defe......
- Rouse v. City of Atlanta
-
Johnson & Harber Const. Co. v. Bing
... ... tortfeasor (OCGA § 51-12-32) even if the county had never been part of the original suit (State Line Metals v. Aluminum Co. of America, 216 Ga.App. 14, 16, 453 S.E.2d 474); this means the right ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...sought to introduce were cumulative . . . Any error in the exclusion of these exhibits was harmless. [Cit.]" Haywood v. State, 220 Ga. App. 182, 183(2), 469 S.E.2d 206 (1996). 5. In Brown's final enumeration of error, he complains of the prosecutor's statement in closing argument that the j......