Lockleer v. State, 76482
| Decision Date | 07 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76482,76482 |
| Parties | LOCKLEER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. Ronald Garnett, Augusta, for appellant.
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles R. Sheppard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction of three counts each of rape, OCGA § 16-6-1(a), and burglary, OCGA § 16-7-1(a), for entering the homes of three women, raping them, and taking things of value.
1. Upon returning its verdict, the jury was polled. One juror stated that the verdict was not hers. Another stated that the verdict was his, with the recommendation for a psychiatric examination. The judge explained to the second juror that sentencing was solely the court's responsibility. The judge instructed the jury again on the unanimity requirement, and sent them back to deliberate further. After doing so, they returned a unanimous verdict and, upon being polled, each member affirmed the verdict as his or her own.
At the time, defendant voiced no objection to this procedure. Now, defendant argues that the court should have sua sponte granted a mistrial, or gone further in "correcting and discussing this matter with the jurors...." although defendant does not indicate the course the discussion should have taken.
A motion for mistrial is not appropriate in such a situation, even if requested by defendant. McKinney v. State, 174 Ga.App. 78, 79(3), 329 S.E.2d 258 (1985); Mills v. State, 160 Ga.App. 49(2), 286 S.E.2d 55 (1981); Rosser v. State, 156 Ga.App. 463, 464(2), 274 S.E.2d 812 (1980).
The court followed the proper procedure in sending the jury back to deliberate further, although not requested to do so by defendant. Jackson v. State, 184 Ga.App. 123, 361 S.E.2d 14 (1987); Rosser v. State, supra. The explanation adequately instructed the jury so that its ultimate verdict cured the original defects.
2. At trial, defendant objected to the introduction of certain State exhibits on the ground that an inadequate chain of custody was shown. These exhibits consisted of rape kits for each of the three victims, a separate blood sample taken from one victim, and a rape kit from defendant. These kits consisted of vaginal swabs, blood samples, and combings from the women and blood samples and combings from defendant. Officer Bryant, who investigated these rapes, died before trial. He had transported some of the exhibits to the State Crime Lab for analysis. All other persons in the chain of custody testified, and the entire chain was proven as to two exhibits. All of the exhibits were received at the lab sealed in their containers. When the defendant's kit was delivered by Bryant to the lab, he was accompanied by Officer Smith, who testified.
In order to prove chain of custody of a fungible item, it is not necessary to have every individual who touched the sample testify. Rucker v. State, 250 Ga. 371, 373(1), 297 S.E.2d 481 (1982). It is sufficient to show that "the blood sample [was] handled in a normal course of testing and [that] nothing in the record raises a suspicion that the blood tested was other than that taken from the defendant [and the victims]...." Rucker, supra. Reasonable assurance of the identity of the samples having been shown and there being no evidence of tampering, it was not error to admit them. Cunningham v. State, 255 Ga. 35, 37(5), 334 S.E.2d 656 (1985); Johnson v. State, 184 Ga.App. 745(1a), 362 S.E.2d 450 (1987).
3. Defendant also complains of the trial court's allowance of the testimony of one of the chain of custody witnesses whose name did not appear on the list provided under OCGA § 17-7-110. While the witness apparently was not on the formal list supplied by the State, the State opened its file to defendant's counsel several days before trial and the witness' name was on one of the property slips. Defendant voiced no objection to the testimony of the witness before she testified and was cross-examined. This objection was too late and preserved nothing for our review. Cape v. State, 246 Ga. 520, 524(5), 272 S.E.2d 487 (1980); Warren v. State, 185 Ga.App. 108, 110(3a), 363 S.E.2d 357 (1987).
4. Denial of his motion for new trial on the general grounds is cited as error. Considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the only thing presented for our review on this ground, Towns v. State, 185 Ga.App. 545, 365 S.E.2d 137 (1988), we find it legally sufficient. Defendant argues that the convictions are based only on eyewitness testimony and, therefore, are inherently suspect.
This was not, however, the only evidence. One of defendant's fingerprints was found on the broken window used to gain entry to the apartment of one victim. Defendant admitted to one of his friends that he had committed a rape at the apartment complex of another victim. As to the third, her blood type was A while defendant's was B. Sperm from a type B secreter was found in her vagina and type A blood was found on defendant's jacket.
5. Defendant claims error in the trial court's refusal to give "instructions that de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benefield v. State
...v. State, 265 Ga.App. 402(2), 593 S.E.2d 943 (2004); Hunter v. State, 202 Ga.App. 195(5), 413 S.E.2d 526 (1991); Lockleer v. State, 188 Ga.App. 271(1), 372 S.E.2d 663 (1988); Rosser v. State, 156 Ga.App. 463(2), 274 S.E.2d 812 (1980); White v. Seaboard C.L.R. Co., 139 Ga.App. 833(1), 229 S.......
-
Williams v. State
...however, voiced no objection when the officer testified. Thus, the error was not preserved for our review. Lockleer v. State, 188 Ga. App. 271, 272-273(3), 372 S.E.2d 663 (1988). Although one of Williams' co-defendants objected, that objection did not inure to Williams' benefit because he d......
-
Miller v. State
...274 S.E.2d 812 (1980), aff'd on separate grounds, Dean v. State, 247 Ga. 724, 279 S.E.2d 217 (1981). See also Lockleer v. State, 188 Ga.App. 271, 272(1), 372 S.E.2d 663 (1988). Judgment ANDREWS, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. ...
-
Weathers v. State
...v. State, supra at 720(2), 252 S.E.2d 677. See also White v. State, 230 Ga. 327, 335(4), 196 S.E.2d 849 (1973); Lockleer v. State, 188 Ga.App. 271, 272(2), 372 S.E.2d 663 (1988). 2. The trial court's exclusion of the testimony of a defense witness is enumerated as error. Appellant urges tha......