Miller v. State
Decision Date | 18 March 1993 |
Docket Number | Nos. A93A0285,A93A0286,s. A93A0285 |
Citation | 430 S.E.2d 159,208 Ga.App. 20 |
Parties | MILLER v. The STATE. ELDER v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Frank J. Sparti II, Dallas, for appellant (case no. A93A0285).
G. Wilson Jones, Powder Springs, for appellant (case no. A93A0286).
George C. Turner, Jr., Dist. Atty., James E. Barker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
A jury convicted Steve Lorenzo Miller and Juan Monte Elder of burglary and, following sentencing, each moved for a new trial. The trial court denied each defendant's new trial motion. Defendant Miller appeals in Case No. A93A0285; defendant Elder appeals in Case No. A93A0286. Held:
1. Defendant Miller asserts the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce palm print evidence because (1) the State failed to provide him with a copy of the written palm print report ten days prior to trial and (2) the State failed to establish the chain of custody for the palm print. These assertions are without merit.
(a) The State orally notified defendant of the existence of the palm print evidence as soon as it came to the State's attention (i.e., twelve days before trial) and it gave defendant a copy of the written scientific report seven days before trial. It cannot be said, therefore, that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the palm print evidence. Law v. State, 251 Ga. 525, 527-528, 307 S.E.2d 904 ( ).
(b) Roland v. State, 137 Ga.App. 796, 797(3), 224 S.E.2d 846.
(c) The trial court did not err in denying defendant Miller's motion for a new trial.
2. Defendant Elder contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, denying his motion for a continuance due to the absence of a subpoenaed witness, and charging the jury that an alibi defense involves "a possibility" (rather than an impossibility) of the defendant's presence at the scene of the crime.
(a) "A motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when there is no conflict in evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. OCGA § 17-9-1(a); Taylor v. State, 252 Ga. 125, 312 S.E.2d 311. On appeal a reviewing court can consider all the evidence (Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 375, 219 S.E.2d 743) and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527, 314 S.E.2d 436.
Jones v. State, 201 Ga.App. 102, 103(2), 104, 410 S.E.2d 199.
(b) After defendant Miller rested, the trial court instructed defendant Elder to proceed. Defendant Elder moved for a continuance because a subpoenaed witness was not in the courtroom. Recessing for lunch, the trial court gave defendant Elder until 1:00 p.m. to find the witness "and find out what the problem is." Defendant Elder was unable to find the witness and he moved for an overnight continuance so the witness could "be picked up tonight and brought to the courtroom tomorrow so that he can testify." In this connection, defendant's counsel demonstrated that the witness was an alibi witness and that no other witness was able to present alibi testimony; that the witness was expected to testify that on the day in question, he and defendant Elder were together in Dallas, Georgia, a "good way" from the scene of the crime; that the witness attempted to avoid service of the subpoena; that, eventually, the sheriff's department was able to serve the witness with a subpoena at his house at night; that the witness was in the courtroom on the first day of the trial; and that he told the witness to return the next morning. Summing up, defense counsel presented this plan: The trial court asked the State to present its position and the assistant district attorney responded: Thereupon, the trial court denied the motion for a continuance.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McTaggart v. State
...Counsel failed to show that he reasonably could expect to have the witnesses present in court without undue delay. Miller v. State, 208 Ga.App. 20, 430 S.E.2d 159 (1993). Each of the statutory grounds for a continuance based upon an absent witness is absolute, so that the failure to substan......
-
Elmore v. State, S98A0887.
...tested by an out-of-state expert. See Davis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 657, 658(4), 420 S.E.2d 349 (1992). Compare Miller v. State, 208 Ga.App. 20, 22(2)(b), 430 S.E.2d 159 (1993). Independent testing would appear to relate to the issue of impeachment rather than admissibility. While offering a ......
-
Parker v. Robinson, A16A0212
... ... The thrust of Parker's argument was that the trial court did not state a statutory basis for an award of attorney's fees. The trial court summarily denied 787 S.E.2d 319337 Ga.App. 363 Parker's motion for new trial and ... ...
-
McBride v. State
...identified before their admission into evidence.' Roland v. State, 137 Ga.App. 796, 797(3), 224 S.E.2d 846." Miller v. State, 208 Ga.App. 20, 21(1)(b), 430 S.E.2d 159 (1993). Moreover, the business records exception does not require that the person laying the foundation for the admission of......