Mayfield v. State, 57877
| Decision Date | 04 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57877,57877 |
| Citation | 258 S.E.2d 613,150 Ga.App. 807 |
| Parties | MAYFIELD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William P. Bartles, Jackson, for appellant.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., Kenneth R. Waldrep, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Count 1 charged the unlawful sale of marijuana on August 5, 1977. Count 2 charged defendant with the sale of phenobarbital on August 11, 1977. Held :
1. The state, by its evidence, established the sale by the defendant of the controlled substances described in each count of the indictment. The sales were made to a GBI agent acting undercover. After testifying that he purchased phenobarbital from defendant on August 11, 1977, the state's witness, the GBI agent, was permitted to testify over objection that he saw defendant several days later at which time defendant asked if the witness desired to buy additional phenobarbital, and the agent declined. On a subsequent occasion on the day of and immediately preceding defendant's arrest, the defendant approached this witness and asked if "I would like to buy some grass" and on seeing a police car pull up, the defendant fled. This testimony concerning these subsequent transactions were admitted over objection. This evidence of the other transaction was admissible to show intent, plan, scheme, and bent of mind of defendant. Davis v. State, 233 Ga. 638(2), 212 S.W.2d 814; Coley v. State, 135 Ga.App. 810(2), 219 S.E.2d 35.
2. The indictment alleged that defendant was known by an alias. This was not erroneous under the law of this state. Radford v. State, 140 Ga.App. 195, 230 S.W.2d 345.
3. At the conclusion of the charge to the jury, the court queried the defendant's counsel as to whether defendant had any exceptions to the charge. Counsel responded: "None, your Honor." Now, on appeal, two enumerations of error have been asserted which pertain to the court's charge and a failure to charge on entrapment. Under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in White v. State, 243 Ga. 250, 253 S.E.2d 694 (1979), this failure to except to the charge constitutes a waiver of defendant's right to enumerate error as to the charge or as to a failure to charge.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
..."You never say him do anything illegal, did you?"); Hopkins v. State, 144 Ga.App. 663, 242 S.E.2d 325 (1978); Mayfield v. State, 150 Ga.App. 807, 258 S.E.2d 613 (1979) (criminal admissions-attempting to collect on a previous sale or to make a new one); Calloway v. State, 141 Ga.App. 125, 23......
-
Moore v. State, 59809
...to the failure to charge as to the written request counsel for the defendant waived any error in the charge, citing Mayfield v. State, 150 Ga.App. 807(3), 258 S.E.2d 613. In Mayfield v. State, 150 Ga.App. 807, 258 S.E.2d 613, supra, counsel responded to a query as to whether defendant had a......
-
State v. Johnson
...See Laws v. State, 153 Ga.App. 166, 264 S.E.2d 700 (1980); Anglin v. State, 151 Ga.App. 570, 260 S.E.2d 563 (1979); Mayfield v. State, 150 Ga.App. 807, 258 S.E.2d 613 (1979); Hart v. State, supra. These cases necessarily turn on their facts and are in the last analysis, judgment calls. It i......
-
Jackson v. State, 59391
...the trial court's inquiry on any objections to the charge, White v. State, 243 Ga. 250, 253 S.E.2d 694; Thomas, supra; Mayfield v. State, 150 Ga.App. 807, 258 S.E.2d 613. Appellants cite Harper v. State, 17 Ga.App. 561, 87 S.E. 808 and Rouse v. State, 2 Ga.App. 184(7), 58 S.E. 416 as author......