O'Neal v. State, 67579
| Decision Date | 04 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67579,67579 |
| Citation | 170 Ga.App. 637,318 S.E.2d 66 |
| Parties | O'NEAL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael C. Cherof, Dalton, for appellant.
Stephen A. Williams, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of rape. On appeal he contends the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce evidence of a prior rape committed by appellant, and by denying his motion for a mistrial when allegedly improper remarks were made by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument.
1. Appellant raped the victim after threatening her with a knife, dragging her into a bedroom, striking her and forcibly removing her clothes. He then threatened to kill the victim if she told her boyfriend what had happened. The state was allowed to present evidence that in 1976 appellant broke into a home, dragged the female victim into a bedroom, struck her when she screamed, tore off her clothes and raped her. Appellant contends it was error to allow evidence to be presented about the prior rape (to which appellant pled guilty) because it improperly placed appellant's character in evidence; was offered only to show appellant's bad character; was not similar to the rape for which he was on trial; and the prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value of such evidence.
Evidence of another crime is admissible to show motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind or course of conduct, if some logical connection can be shown between the independent crime and the crime charged other than by showing bad character; this rule has been most liberally extended in the area of sexual offenses. Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649, 652-653(3), 250 S.E.2d 394 (1978), Neal v. State, 159 Ga.App. 450, 451(1), 283 S.E.2d 671 (1981). To be admissible there must be evidence that the defendant was the perpetrator of the independent crime and there must be sufficient similarity between the independent crime and the offense charged that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. Davis v. State, 249 Ga. 309, 311(1), 290 S.E.2d 273 (1982). Both of these conditions were met in the instant case.
Although appellant argues that the evidence was introduced only to show bad character and the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value, appellant testified that the victim consented to intercourse and it was a voluntary act. Thus, evidence of the earlier rape was material on the issue of consent or the lack thereof, and had a direct bearing on appellant's bent of mind. Johnson, supra. Evidence which is material to a case is not inadmissible because it incidentally puts a defendant's character in issue. Hughes v. State, 239 Ga. 393, 397(2), 236 S.E.2d 829 (1977); Miller v. State, 163 Ga.App. 889, 890-891(3), 296 S.E.2d 182 (1982...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevenson v. State
...104 Ariz. 238, 450 P.2d 696, 697 (1969); People v. Weis, 120 Ill.App.3d 597, 76 Ill.Dec. 18, 458 N.E.2d 157 (1983); O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 318 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1984); Youngblood v. Sullivan, 52 Or.App. 173, 628 P.2d 400, 401-02 rev. denied, 291 Or. 368, 634 P.2d 1347 (1981); Common......
-
McBee v. State
...or bent of mind. Id. at 642, n. 2, 409 S.E.2d 649; Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649, 653, 250 S.E.2d 394 (1978); O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 318 S.E.2d 66 (1984). "The second affirmative showing is that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused committed the independent ......
-
Hurst v. State
...and claimed that he sat in the backseat because he thought it was his brother's car and he wanted to take a nap); O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 318 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1984) (noting that "there must be sufficient similarity between the independent crime and the offense charged that proof of ......
-
Chews v. State
...571(2), 353 S.E.2d 67 (1987). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 638(2), 318 S.E.2d 66 (1984). 5. The trial court did not err in refusing to permit defense counsel to state, during closing argument, that no tele......