Mathis v. State, A92A0194
| Decision Date | 15 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A0194,A92A0194 |
| Citation | 204 Ga.App. 244,418 S.E.2d 800 |
| Parties | MATHIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Byrd & Anthony, Lovick P. Anthony, Jr., Butler, for appellant.
Douglas C. Pullen, Dist. Atty., Kim B. Hoffman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Mathis appeals his conviction of three counts of selling a controlled substance, cocaine. Held:
1. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine. By this motion, defendant sought to exclude evidence concerning the identification of the substances which defendant had sold to an undercover law enforcement officer. Defendant asserted that the state would be unable to prove the chain of custody due to the death of a deputy sheriff who had received the evidence for transmission to the State Crime Laboratory.
The undercover officer who made the purchases from defendant testified as to his procedure of using staples to seal each of the substances he purchased in an evidence bag marked with the seller's name and attached an evidence report form before turning the bag over to other officers for transport to the crime laboratory. The crime laboratory chemist testified that at the time he received the evidence bags, from the deceased deputy sheriff, they were sealed tight and stapled shut. Defendant did not present any evidence of tampering with the evidence bags.
Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 404 S.E.2d 296. See also Page v. State, 198 Ga.App. 338, 339(2), 401 S.E.2d 564.
2. In his second enumeration of error, defendant complains of the trial court's failure to charge the jury specifically that the substances tested by the State Crime Laboratory could have been tainted due to the failure of the State to prove an unbroken chain of custody. However, this issue was not preserved for appeal by any objection at trial. Defendant thus waived any error. Cole v. State, 200 Ga.App. 318, 321(4), 408 S.E.2d 438; Deal v. State, 199 Ga.App. 184, 188(6), 404 S.E.2d 343.
3. Defendant's final enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in the denial of his motion under Batson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eppinger v. State
...to testify did not render the evidence inadmissible in the absence of any indication of tampering or substitution. Mathis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 244(1), 418 S.E.2d 800 (1992) ("The fact that one of the persons in control of a fungible substance does not testify at trial does not, without mor......
-
Watkins v. State
...1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 2. See also Hightower v. State, 220 Ga.App. 165, 166(1), 469 S.E.2d 295 (1996); Mathis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 244, 245(3), 418 S.E.2d 800 (1992); Weaver v. State, 200 Ga.App. 82(2), 406 S.E.2d 574 (1991); Glanton v. State, 189 Ga.App. 505(2), 376 S.E.2d 386 ...
-
Tran v. State
...239 Ga.App. 230, 232(4), 520 S.E.2d 705 (1999) ("Harm and error must be shown to warrant reversal."). 13. See Mathis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 244(1), 418 S.E.2d 800 (1992). 14. (Punctuation omitted.) Id. 15. See Staples v. State, 209 Ga.App. 802, 805-806(5), 434 S.E.2d 757 (1993). 16. (Punctua......
-
Wilson v. State
...v. State, 260 Ga.App. 253, 254-255(1), 581 S.E.2d 596 (2003). 14. Compare id., supra. 15. Compare id. 16. Compare id. 17. 204 Ga.App. 244, 418 S.E.2d 800 (1992). 18. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 244(1), 418 S.E.2d 19. See Concepcion v. State, 205 Ga.App. 138, 139, 421 S.E.2d ......