Laney v. State, 62258
| Decision Date | 21 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62258,62258 |
| Citation | 159 Ga.App. 609,284 S.E.2d 114 |
| Parties | LANEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Evita A. Paschall, Augusta, for appellant.
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
After hearing several days of testimony, a jury found appellant guilty of a two-hour crime spree in which he committed armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, kidnapping with bodily harm (rape), aggravated assault, and three counts of attempted armed robbery. Following the jury's verdict, appellant was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, four terms of ten years, and one term of seven years, all to run consecutively. Appellant now contends that his convictions should be reversed. We disagree.
1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant maintains that the trial court erred when it refused to disqualify a juror for cause. In response to a question asked by defense counsel, a juror stated that she might subconsciously identify with a rape victim. Previously, the juror had said that her mind was perfectly impartial between the state and the defendant. See Code Ann. § 59-806(3). Although the juror's response to defense counsel's question indicated a possible bias or prejudice on her part, the juror's opinion was not shown "to be so firm or fixed as to be unyielding." Holloway v. State, 137 Ga.App. 124(2), 222 S.E.2d 898. See also, Sullens v. State, 239 Ga. 766(1), 238 S.E.2d 864. Thus, no error resulted when the trial court refused to remove the juror for cause.
2. Appellant next asserts that evidence of his character was improperly admitted when a South Carolina physician identified appellant as "a patient who was brought to [the doctor] in the emergency room by the Aiken County Sheriff's Department to obtain samples of blood." After defense counsel objected, the trial court instructed the jury not to infer that appellant had been charged with any offense in South Carolina and to disregard the fact that blood had been taken from appellant while in the custody of South Carolina officers.
Evidence which shows or tends to show that the defendant has committed another crime independent of the offenses for which he is on trial is irrelevant and inadmissible. Brown v. State, 118 Ga.App. 617, 165 S.E.2d 185. The doctor's description of appellant in no way intimated that appellant had committed a crime for which he was not presently being tried. Even if the testimony had had the effect of placing appellant's character in issue, the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were sufficient to cure any error. High v. State, 153 Ga.App. 729(2B), 266 S.E.2d 364.
3. Appellant also claims that additional evidence of his character was erroneously allowed in by the trial court. Specifically, appellant complains of the references to the Aiken County Sheriff's Department that several state witnesses made in regard to the blood samples used as evidence against appellant. Each reference objected to by appellant was in response to a question seeking to ascertain the chain of custody of the blood samples. Inasmuch as an officer of the Aiken County Sheriff's Department witnessed the withdrawal and labeling of the blood and then delivered it to the Georgia Crime Lab, references to that office were necessary to establish the chain of custody. Contrary to appellant's assertions, no evidence of appellant's incarceration in Aiken County was introduced.
4. Appellant returns to the issue of his character in his eighth enumeration of error in which he urges as error the admission of his taped confession into evidence. On the tape, appellant not only mentioned each of the crimes for which he was convicted, but also referred to a shooting in which he took part in South Carolina. Appellant maintains that the admission of this latter portion of the taped confession was improper since it concerned a separate dissimilar offense. " " Ledford v. State, 215 Ga. 799, 805, 113 S.E.2d 628. See also Lakes v. State, 151 Ga.App. 769(2), 261 S.E.2d 744.
5. Vials of blood taken from appellant and his co-indictee (who was tried separately) were used against appellant. He maintains that it was error to admit the vials since there was insufficient evidence to establish the chain of custody of the blood samples. This enumeration is meritless in light of the testimony of various state witnesses. Dr. Hewitt, who drew the blood from appellant and his co-indictee, testified that he gave the envelopes containing the blood samples to a police officer. Officer Bell of the Aiken County Sheriff's Department testified that Dr. Hewitt took the blood samples from appellant and his co-indictee and labeled the vials in the presence of the officer. Bell then sealed the vials in envelopes and delivered them to technicians at the Georgia Crime Lab. The technicians also testified that they received the vials in question from Officer Bell.
Patterson v. State, 224 Ga. 197(2), 160 S.E.2d 815. "[I]t is not necessary that the state negative all possibility of tampering but only that it show it is reasonably certain there was no alteration..." Meadows v. State, 135 Ga.App. 758, 760, 219 S.E.2d 174. In the present case, the state's evidence was sufficient to establish with "reasonable certainty" that there had been no tampering with or alteration of the evidence. See Thornberry v. State, 146 Ga.App. 827(3), 247 S.E.2d 495. Thus, appellant's enumeration of error is without merit.
6. When defense counsel made a chain of custody objection to the state's tender of the blood samples for admission into evidence, the assistant district attorney asked to withdraw the exhibits temporarily and move again for their admission after the testimony of Officer Bell. The trial court agreed to the withdrawal, stating, Appellant asserts that this statement by the trial court expressed or intimated its opinion that the chain of custody had been established and any doubt thereof would be dispelled by the testimony of Officer Bell. See Code Ann. § 81-1104.
The trial court's comment did not constitute an impermissible judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hornsby v. State
...whether or not they introduced evidence of other crimes. See Ledford v. State, 215 Ga. 799, 805, 113 S.E.2d 628; Laney v. State, 159 Ga.App. 609, 610(4), 284 S.E.2d 114. In passing, we note that defendant himself made use of the circumstances surrounding his statements, testifying that he o......
-
Gaily v. State, 73460
...committed also another and separate offense. [Cits.]' " Ledford v. State, 215 Ga. 799, 805, 113 S.E.2d 628. Accord Laney v. State, 159 Ga.App. 609, 610(4), 284 S.E.2d 114. Defendant's fourth enumeration of error is without 5. Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to permit a ......
-
Williams v. State
...court did not err in admitting the evidence. McDaniel v. State, 248 Ga. 494, 495(3), 283 S.E.2d 862 (1981). See Laney v. State, 159 Ga.App. 609, 612(9), 284 S.E.2d 114 (1981); Barrett v. State, 140 Ga.App. 309, 231 S.E.2d 116 (1976). Compare Smith v. State, 154 Ga.App. 190, 267 S.E.2d 826 (......
-
Bragg v. State, 63480
...Spencer v. State, 236 Ga. 697, 700(4), 224 S.E.2d 910; Berryhill v. State, 235 Ga. 549, 551(6), 221 S.E.2d 185; Laney v. State, 159 Ga.App. 609, 610(4), 284 S.E.2d 114. Moreover, in his testimony before the jury, on direct and on cross-examination, the defendant spoke freely of being on par......