Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 10 January 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A90A1629,A90A1629 |
Citation | 198 Ga.App. 316,401 S.E.2d 331 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Towery, Thompson, Gulliver & Bunch, Jeffrey D. Bunch, Linda B. Borsky, Atlanta, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, Dist. Atty., Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant and a co-defendant were jointly tried before a jury on charges of armed robbery and robbery by intimidation. Although the co-defendant was acquitted of all charges, appellant was found guilty of robbery by intimidation and he appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury's verdict.
1. Construed to uphold the verdict, the evidence is not merely sufficient, it is overwhelming. A rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt of robbery by intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams v. State, 171 Ga.App. 624, 320 S.E.2d 546 (1984).
2. ' ' Fudge v. State, 164 Ga.App. 392, 393(3), 297 S.E.2d 329 (1982). Accordingly, a motion to exclude evidence of both the pre-trial and the in-court identification of appellant on this ground was correctly denied. Harris v. State, 168 Ga.App. 159, 160(1), 308 S.E.2d 406 (1983). The evidence of record also supports the trial court's determination that the procedures used during the lineup were neither unnecessarily suggestive nor conducive to irreparably mistaken identification. See Coleman v. State, 160 Ga.App. 158, 159(2), 286 S.E.2d 494 (1981).
3. To the extent that appellant requested a change in the courtroom seating arrangements so as to protect the confidentiality of his privileged communications with counsel, the trial court granted the request. To the extent that appellant urges on appeal that the trial court erred in failing, without request, to order more extensive changes in the courtroom seating arrangements, nothing is presented for decision. " ' Iglesias v. State, 191 Ga.App. 403, 404, 381 S.E.2d 604 (1989).
4. After invocation of the rule of sequestration, the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, was authorized to permit the chief investigating officer to remain and assist in the orderly presentation of the State's case. " '[T]he rule as fixed by [OCGA § 24-9-61,] ... as to the sequestration of witnesses, confer[s] upon the party making such request an absolute right, subject only to the sound discretion of the trial judge in permitting one or more witnesses to remain in the courtroom to advise the opposite party in the presentation of his case.' " Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179, 180-181(2), 149 S.E.2d 315 (1966). See also Norman v. State, 255 Ga. 313, 316(3), 338 S.E.2d 249 (1986). Likewise, it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to permit this witness to testify after having heard the testimony of other witnesses for the State. Law v. State, 165 Ga.App. 687, 691(4), 302 S.E.2d 570 (1983).
5. Although the admission into evidence of the audiotaped custodial statement of appellant's co-defendant is enumerated as error, appellant failed to object to the introduction of this evidence. " ' Smallwood v. State, 193 Ga.App. 807, 809(1), 389 S.E.2d 390 (1989). A review of the record reveals that appellant not only failed to object but that he insisted on a transcript of the taped statement being given to each juror. Fitzgerald v. State, 193 Ga.App. 76, 78(7), 386 S.E.2d 914 (1989).
6. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. State
...to permit the chief investigating officer to remain and assist in the orderly presentation of the State's case." Johnson v. State, 198 Ga.App. 316(4), 401 S.E.2d 331 (1991). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the lead investigator to remain in the Mitchell also argues ......
-
Parrott v. State
...arguments concerning this enumeration were not raised below and accordingly cannot be considered on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 198 Ga.App. 316(3), 401 S.E.2d 331 (1991). 7. After the State produced exculpatory evidence in response to appellant's Brady motion (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. ......
-
Evans v. State
...at a pre-indictment lineup. (Cits.)' " (Cits.)' Fudge v. State, 164 Ga.App. 392, 393(3), 297 S.E.2d 329 (1982)." Johnson v. State, 198 Ga.App. 316(2), 401 S.E.2d 331 (1991). Exclusion of the evidence was not 4. Enumeration 6. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by permitting an of......
-
White v. State, A02A0064.
...to admission of this statement at trial. He therefore has waived any right to assert it as error on appeal. Johnson v. State, 198 Ga.App. 316, 317(5), 401 S.E.2d 331 (1991). White insists that admission of this statement was "plain error" requiring reversal even in the absence of an objecti......