Holloway v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. A07A0893.,A07A0893.
• Citation: Holloway v. State, 653 S.E.2d 95, 287 Ga.App. 655 (Ga. App. 2007)
• Parties: HOLLOWAY v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

287 Ga. App. 655

653 S.E.2d 95

HOLLOWAY v.The STATE.

No. A07A0893.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 27, 2007.

Monica N. Hamlett, for appellant.

Scott L. Ballard, District Attorney, for appellee.

BERNES, Judge.

An Upson County jury convicted Ronnie Holloway of burglary.Holloway appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress DNA evidence and in allowing the jury to view a surveillance videotape over his objection.We disagree and therefore affirm.

On appeal, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict.Chambers v. State,284 Ga. App. 400, 643 S.E.2d 871(2007).We neither weigh the evidence nor determine witness credibility.Id.So viewed, the record reflects that on the morning of June 13, 2004, a custodian of East Thomaston Baptist Church arrived at the church to discover that the front door was damaged and a side window was broken.He immediately called the police.

After the investigating officer arrived, she determined that someone had "busted in" the front door with a sharp object in order to gain access to the church.Inside, she observed that the church was in disarray and discovered that the church's safe had been taken outside the church and its door removed.She also found and collected blood droplets that she believed to have come from the perpetrator near broken glass from two interior office doors.

During her investigation, the officer learned that the church had a surveillance camera which monitored the hallway outside of the internal church offices.The camera was attached to a video recorder that was set to begin recording when any of three strategically placed motion sensors were triggered.After watching the videotape, the officer immediately went to arrest Holloway, whom she had known for 19 years.She found Holloway hiding underneath a mattress in a bedroom of his brother's house.Holloway had a small laceration on the palm of his hand.

The officer subsequently obtained and executed a search warrant for the drawing of a blood sample from Holloway.A forensic biologist from the state crime laboratory conducted a DNA test on Holloway's blood and compared it to the blood found at the crime scene.She determined "with a reasonable scientific certainty" that the blood found at the church belonged to Holloway.Specifically, she testified that the likelihood that the blood found at the church belonged to someone other than Holloway was 1/20,000,000,000,000,000.

1.Holloway contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the DNA evidence.He argues that the search warrant which authorized the taking of his blood sample for the DNA comparison failed to specify with particularity the item to be seized and thus gave the executing officers insufficient notice of the evidence to be collected.We disagree.

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionandArt. I, Sec. I, Par. XIII of the Georgia Constitution"require that a search warrant particularly describe the article or articles sought."(Citations omitted.)Dobbins v. State,262 Ga. 161, 164(3), 415 S.E.2d 168(1992)."While the degree of the description's specificity is flexible and will vary with the circumstances involved, it cannot leave the determination of what articles fall within the warrant's description and are to be seized entirely to the judgment and opinion of the [individual] executing the warrant."(Citation omitted.)Id."Descriptions appearing in warrant applications or other documents may provide the necessary particularity if the document bearing the description accompanies the warrant and the warrant expressly refers to the other document to incorporate it by reference."(Footnote omitted.)Battle v. State,275 Ga. App. 301, 620 S.E.2d 506(2005).

Here, the contested warrant commanded a search for "the following described property, to wit: Ronnie Holloway, evidence associated with a burglary investigation to include: blood evidence associated with a burglary."The attached affidavit, however, which was incorporated into the warrant by reference, provided in pertinent part "a search warrant for . . . blood of Ronnie Holloway for DNA sample comparison."Elsewhere, the affidavit requested the issuance of a search warrant to "obtain sample from the person [sic] of Ronnie Holloway, to wit: his blood."Read together, the warrant and the attached affidavit particularly described the evidence to be seized and gave the executing officers adequate notice of the search warrant's scope and command.Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Holloway's motion to suppress the DNA evidence.SeeLester v. State,278 Ga.App. 247, 249-250(1), 628 S.E.2d 674(2006)(considering both the warrant and the affidavit to conclude that the officer provided sufficient detail to identify the subject location despite the fact that the address in the warrant was typed incorrectly);State v. Hicks,269 Ga.App. 741, 743, 605 S.E.2d 34(2004)(considering both the warrant and the supporting affidavit to conclude that the description of the targeted location was sufficiently definite).

2.Holloway contends that the trial court erred in admitting the surveillance videotape because the tape did not contain the date and time on which it was recorded.Pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-48(c), videotapes created by unmanned cameras

shall be admissible in evidence when the court determines, based on competent evidence presented to the court, that such items tend to show reliably the fact or facts for which the items are offered, provided that prior to the admission of such evidence the date and time of such . . . videotape recording shall be contained on such evidence and such date and time shall be shown to have been...