Heard v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 54031,No. 1,54031,1 |
| Citation | 142 Ga.App. 703,236 S.E.2d 911 |
| Parties | Robert HEARD v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Smith, Jr., Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., James H. Whitmer, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gainesville, for appellee.
Defendant was indicted for the offense of forgery in 11 counts. On motion to sever, Count 2, by stipulation of counsel, was tried on accusation. A written motion to suppress evidence was denied, and defendant was tried and convicted and sentenced to serve a term of four years, three years in confinement and the remaining year to be suspended and probated on the condition that the defendant make restitution. Defendant appeals. Held :
1. The contention of the defendant that the pre-trial and pre-indictment photographic identification of the defendant tainted any in-court identification is not meritorious. The evidence heard on motion to suppress shows clearly the officers presented six photographs of persons, one of which was the defendant, and in each instance the witnesses identified the defendant. There was no improper identification of the defendant to these witnesses prior to trial so as to suggest the defendant as the one to be identified by the witnesses as was the case in Baier v. State, 124 Ga.App. 334(1), 183 S.E.2d 622, and Holcomb v. State, 128 Ga.App. 238, 196 S.E.2d 330.
2. Defendant contends that testimony elicited by the state alluded to other offenses and acts (thus injecting his character in evidence), which were not at issue in the trial of this case, that is, the cashing of checks at other places of business. Similar methods were employed by the defendant in the commission of such offenses and same is admissible in his trial for the purpose of identifying him as the guilty party and for the purpose of showing motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct. Bell v. State, 234 Ga. 473(1), 216 S.E.2d 279; Hunt v. State, 233 Ga. 329, 331, 211 S.E.2d 288; Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294, 312, 210 S.E.2d 775. Nor was this testimony subject to objection in placing it in rebuttal after the defendant had testified that he never had cashed any of the checks drawn on his sister's bank account. None of this testimony was subject to the objections made, nor did the court err in denying the motion for mistrial at the close of the evidence.
3. The court did not err in giving an instruction relating to the definition of a party to a crime which is the substance of Code § 26-801. The evidence authorized such charge since others may have been involved in the cashing of the check in question, the forgery being that of his sister's signature, drawn on her account, who had insufficient funds in the account. Ingram v. State, 134 Ga.App. 935, 937, 216 S.E.2d 608; Hart v. State, 139 Ga.App. 791, 792, 229 S.E.2d 673. Where transactions involving relatives are under review slight circumstances are often sufficient to induce a belief that there was collusion between the parties. Bryant v. Dickerson, 19 Ga.App. 80, 82, 90 S.E. 1027. See in this connection Freeman v. State, 130 Ga.App. 718, 720(3), 204 S.E.2d 445.
4. A motion for mistrial based upon grounds of improper argument by the assistant district attorney is not meritorious inasmuch as the court instructed the jury to disregard this argument and advised the jury it was instructing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldsmith v. State
...plan, intent, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct. Hanson v. State, 143 Ga.App. 200, 201(2), 237 S.E.2d 699; Heard v. State, 142 Ga.App. 703(2), 236 S.E.2d 911. Generally, evidence of independent crimes is inadmissible unless its relevance to the issues at trial outweighs its prejudi......
-
Robinson v. State, s. 70530-70532
...circumstances are often sufficient to induce a belief that there was collusion between the parties. [Cits.]" Heard v. State, 142 Ga.App. 703, 704, 236 S.E.2d 911 (1977). As previously noted, appellant McNealy was the nephew of appellant "We must view the evidence in a light most favorable t......
-
Lang v. State, 67996
...slight circumstances are often sufficient to induce a belief that there was collusion between the parties. [Cits.]" Heard v. State, 142 Ga.App. 703(3), 704, 236 S.E.2d 911. Accordingly, this enumeration is without merit. 3. There was no error in refusing to give a requested charge that wher......
-
Rider v. State, 57465
...prompted by testimony which appellant elicited. Salisbury v. State, 222 Ga. 549(2), 150 S.E.2d 819 (1966); Heard v. State, 142 Ga.App. 703(4), 236 S.E.2d 911 (1977). 2. Appellant contends certain testimony was erroneously admitted. However, appellant raised no objection to the testimony bel......