Mathis v. State, 68874

Citation172 Ga.App. 314,323 S.E.2d 227
Decision Date04 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 68874,68874
PartiesMATHIS v. The STATE.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Susan E. Teaster, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Paul Howard, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

SOGNIER, Judge.

Mathis appeals from conviction of two counts of robbery and three counts of armed robbery.

1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by not excluding from his confession which was read to the jury a statement that he had assaulted two policemen in Florida and then plea bargained with the court. Appellant argues that the trial court thus allowed the State to place his character in issue although appellant had not injected his character. This contention was decided adversely to appellant in Bradford v. State, 166 Ga.App. 584, 585-586(4), 305 S.E.2d 32 (1983), where we held it is not a valid ground of objection to admission into evidence of a confession by the accused that the language indicated he had committed another, separate offense. See also Burke v. State, 248 Ga. 124, 126(3), 281 S.E.2d 607 (1981).

2. Appellant claims error in the denial of his motion to sever the offenses, arguing that the number of charges and the complexity of the facts were such that the jury would be unable to distinguish the evidence and apply the law to each offense independently from the other offenses.

The six robberies with which appellant was charged (he was acquitted of one charge) occurred within a period of 15 days, on the same street, at businesses within a short distance of each other and appellant's method of robbing the victims was the same.

Offenses may be joined for trial when they are based on a series of acts connected together or on a series of acts constituting part of a single scheme or plan. Quick v. State, 166 Ga.App. 492, 494(3), 304 S.E.2d 916 (1983). If the offenses are joined for either reason the defendant does not have an automatic right of severance. Id. The trial judge has discretion concerning the severance of a trial when there is evidence of two or more offenses based on a series of connected acts or constituting facts of a single scheme or plan. Johnson v. State, 158 Ga.App. 398, 399(4), 280 S.E.2d 419 (1981). We find there was sufficient evidence of a series of connected acts to authorize a single trial, and the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to sever. Quick, supra at 495(3), 304 S.E.2d 916; Johnson, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

McMURRAY,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Berry v. State, A93A1053
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 26, 1993
    ...reference to that portion of defendant's statement during the State's argument to the jury. The State's reliance upon Mathis v. State, 172 Ga.App. 314(1), 323 S.E.2d 227 and Bradford v. State, 166 Ga.App. 584, 585(4), 305 S.E.2d 32, is misplaced since this defendant did not admit his commis......
  • St. John v. State, 73641
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • May 14, 1987
    ...or constituting [parts] of a single scheme or plan. Johnson v. State, 158 Ga.App. 398, 399(4) (280 SE2d 419) (1981)." Mathis v. State, 172 Ga.App. 314(2), 323 S.E.2d 227. Pretermitting any issue presented by the absence from the record of any ruling on defendant's motion to sever, we note t......
  • Green v. State, 71802
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 10, 1986
    ...Sport v. State, 253 Ga. 689(1), 324 S.E.2d 184 (1985); Scott v. State, 172 Ga.App. 725(1), 324 S.E.2d 565 (1984); Mathis v. State, 172 Ga.App. 314(1), 323 S.E.2d 227 (1984). The evidence objected to was proffered to demonstrate appellant's propensity to threaten and assault other participan......
  • Marlow v. State, A89A0917
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • September 5, 1989
    ...to the recitation of his incriminatory statement. Bradford v. State, 166 Ga.App. 584, 585(4), 305 S.E.2d 32 (1984); Mathis v. State, 172 Ga.App. 314(1), 323 S.E.2d 227 (1984). See McGinnis v. State, 258 Ga. 673, 674(2), 372 S.E.2d 804 (1988). Moreover, the court promptly gave curative instr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT