Morrison v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A09A1253.,A09A1253. |
| Citation | 685 S.E.2d 413,300 Ga. App. 405 |
| Parties | MORRISON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Mary Erickson, for Appellant.
Lee Darragh, Dist. Atty., Lindsay H. Burton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
A Hall County jury convicted Jarvis Morrison of the sale of cocaine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30(b). Morrison contends that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court allegedly erred by admitting his three prior drug convictions as similar transaction evidence at trial. We discern no error and affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the evidence at trial showed that the Hall County Sheriff's Office launched an investigation into drug activity in Morrison's neighborhood after receiving several complaints. The officers conducted surveillance of the area and on November 20, 2007 coordinated a controlled buy using a confidential informant. Prior to the controlled buy, the informant and her vehicle were searched. The officers confirmed that she did not have any drugs or other contraband in her possession. The officers then gave the informant a $20 bill for her use in consummating the controlled buy and equipped her with a cell phone and surveillance equipment to record the transaction.
The confidential informant drove to the area where Morrison, his co-defendant, Tavaras Anderson, and three other males were sitting at a table on the side of the road. The informant made contact with the group by waving the $20 bill to signal her desire to make a drug purchase. Anderson approached the informant's vehicle, retrieved the $20 bill, and walked back toward Morrison at the table. Anderson and Morrison extended their hands toward each other and made a hand-to-hand exchange of the cash for the drugs. Following the exchange, Anderson returned to the informant's vehicle and handed her a rock of crack cocaine.
After completing the transaction, the informant delivered the purchased crack cocaine and the videotape of the transaction to the investigating officers. An officer watched the videotape to confirm the informant's report of the drug sale and to identify the perpetrators who had engaged in the transaction.
The officers immediately returned to the crime scene, where they found Morrison and Anderson and placed them under arrest. Police found the $20 bill that the informant had used to purchase the crack cocaine inside Morrison's pants pocket.
At trial, three prior drug transactions perpetrated by Morrison were admitted as similar transaction evidence. This evidence showed that in October 2004, an undercover officer with the Hall County Sheriff's Office was engaged in a drug investigation in Morrison's neighborhood. The officer encountered Morrison in the parking lot of a nearby convenience store, and held up two fingers to signal his desire to purchase $20 worth of crack cocaine. Morrison approached the officer's vehicle, retrieved a baggy containing crack cocaine from inside his pants, and exchanged one rock of crack cocaine for the officer's $20 bill. Morrison was later arrested and entered a guilty plea to sale of cocaine.
The second transaction admitted into evidence occurred in November 2004. On this occasion, an undercover officer with the Hall County Sheriff's Office and a confidential informant were conducting another drug investigation in Morrison's neighborhood. While driving in the area, the officer and informant made contact with Morrison, who had nodded at them to signal the solicitation of a drug transaction. When the officer asked Morrison for $20 worth of crack cocaine, Morrison reached into the front of his pants, pulled out a rock of crack cocaine, and handed it to the informant in exchange for the money. Morrison was later arrested and he entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
The third drug transaction occurred in December 2004. Again on this occasion, an undercover officer with the Hall County Sheriff's Office was conducting a drug investigation in Morrison's neighborhood. While driving in the area, the officer made contact with a third party drug runner and told him he wanted to purchase crack cocaine. The drug runner directed the officer to Morrison's residence, and the officer gave the drug runner a $20 bill to make the purchase. The drug runner met Morrison on the front porch of the residence where they exchanged the money for crack cocaine. The drug runner then returned to the officer's vehicle and delivered the crack cocaine that he had obtained from Morrison. The officer obtained a search warrant for Morrison's residence based upon the drug transaction. When the warrant was executed, the officer discovered a baggy containing crack cocaine, scales, and several hundred dollars in U.S. currency. Following his arrest, Morrison admitted that he had been selling drugs and that the drugs found in the residence belonged to him. He later pled guilty to possession of cocaine.
At the trial of this case, Morrison testified in his own behalf. He admitted his involvement in the prior drug transactions, but denied having participated in the drug transaction in this case. Morrison claimed that Anderson paid him the informant's $20 bill to settle a bet that they had previously made on a football game. After the presentation of the trial evidence, the jury found Morrison guilty of the sale of cocaine offense as charged.
In Morrison's sole claim of error on appeal, h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. the State.
...13. 289 Ga.App. 590, 657 S.E.2d 540 (2008). 14. (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 594(2), 657 S.E.2d 540. 15. See Morrison v. State, 300 Ga.App. 405, 408, 685 S.E.2d 413 (2009). 16. See Gresham v. State, 239 Ga.App. 280, 281, 521 S.E.2d 207 (1999) (self-induced error in requesting a particular......
-
Newton v. State
... ... State, 287 Ga.App. 280, 282(1), 651 S.E.2d 192 (2007). Implicit also are the concepts that the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and that its [313 Ga.App. 891] probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Morrison v. State, 300 Ga.App. 405, 407, 685 S.E.2d 413 (2009).Here, the State filed a notice of intent to present similar transaction evidence involving Newton's 2003 guilty plea and conviction to a number of drug charges, including the [723 S.E.2d 98] offense of criminal attempt to manufacture ... ...
-
Carson v. State
... ... State, 250 Ga. 317, 321(2)(a), 297 S.E.2d 227 (1982).13. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) King v. State, 263 Ga. 741, 744(2)(b), 438 S.E.2d 620 (1994).14. (Citations omitted.) Hall v. State, 230 Ga.App. 741, 742, 497 S.E.2d 603 (1998).15. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Morrison v. State, 300 Ga.App. 405, 407, 685 S.E.2d 413 (2009).16. Porter v. State, 264 Ga.App. 526, 531(4), 591 S.E.2d 436 (2003).17. (Citation omitted.) Morrison, supra at 407408, 685 S.E.2d 413.18. See Stephens v. State, 208 Ga.App. 291, 292(1), 430 S.E.2d 29 (1993) (prior guilty plea to cocaine ... ...
-
Farley v. State
... ... State, 287 Ga.App. 280, 282(1), 651 S.E.2d 192 (2007). Implicit also are the concepts that the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) [732 S.E.2d 135]Morrison v. State, 300 Ga.App. 405, 407, 685 S.E.2d 413 (2009).When reviewing the trial court's factual findings regarding whether the [S]tate satisfied the three-prong test, we apply the clearly erroneous standard. The decision to admit similar transaction evidence which satisfies the three-prong test is ... ...
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...acid (DNA) probes." Id. 4. O.C.G.A. § 53-2-3(2)(B)(ii)-(C). 5. 300 Ga. App. 408, 685 S.E.2d 411 (2009). 6. Id. at 410-11, 685 S.E.2d at 413. 7. Id. at 409-11, 685 S.E.2d at 412-13. 8. Id. at 410-11, 685 S.E.2d at 413. 9. Id. at 411, 685 S.E.2d at 413. 10. As noted by the court, O.C.G.A. § 5......