Haywood v. State, A95A2789

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Citation469 S.E.2d 206,220 Ga.App. 182
Docket NumberNo. A95A2789,A95A2789
PartiesHAYWOOD v. The STATE.
Decision Date10 January 1996

Page 206

469 S.E.2d 206
220 Ga.App. 182
HAYWOOD

v.
The STATE.
No. A95A2789.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jan. 10, 1996.
Reconsideration Denied Feb. 13, 1996.
Certiorari Denied May 3, 1996.

Page 207

[220 Ga.App. 184] 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.

[220 Ga.App. 182] McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

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transaction case, defendant had entered a plea of nolo contendere and been afforded first offender status which had not been revoked at the time of trial.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 [220 Ga.App. 183] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Davis v. State, S97A1471
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • March 2, 1998
    ...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, A19A1737
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • February 10, 2020
    ...to a dedication of the property to a public use. ...") (citations and punctuation omitted); Johnson & Harber Constr. Co. , supra, 220 Ga. App. at 182 (2), 469 S.E.2d 697 ("[A] dedication is not complete until both the intention to dedicate and acceptance by the public are shown."). Addition......
  • Johnson & Harber Const. Co. v. Bing, A95A2715
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • February 12, 1996
    ...220 Ga.App. 179 JOHNSON & HARBER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. BING et al. No. A95A2715. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Feb. 12, 1996. Page 698 [220 Ga.App. 182] Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Wayne D. McGrew III, Daniel J. Huff, Fain, Major & Wiley, Christopher E. Penna, Atlanta, for Dec......
  • Brown v. State, No. A02A1293
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 18, 2002
    ...introduce were cumulative . . . Any [258 Ga. App. 82] error in the exclusion of these exhibits was harmless. [Cit.]" Haywood v. State, 220 Ga. App. 182, 183(2), 469 S.E.2d 206 5. In Brown's final enumeration of error, he complains of the prosecutor's statement in closing argument that the j......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT