Overby v. State
| Decision Date | 22 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A0533.,A99A0533. |
| Citation | 516 S.E.2d 585,237 Ga. App. 730 |
| Parties | OVERBY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Billy I. Daughtry, Jr., Elberton, for appellant.
Robert W. Lavender, District Attorney, Kathleen R. Johnson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant Marshall Overby pleaded guilty of a felony violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, for growing marijuana, and received a ten-year sentence to be served under intensive probation. The State subsequently petitioned to revoke defendant's probation on the ground he committed the new offenses of cruelty to children and battery on June 8, 1998.
At the hearing, the State's only witness1 was Officer Steve Daniel Thomas of the Franklin County Sheriff's Department, who responded to a complaint at defendant's residence. Defendant was not at the residence when Officer Thomas arrived. Officer Thomas identified State's Exhibits 1 through 4 as photographs he took of defendant's sister, Kimberly Reese, and her son, Joshua. These pictures reveal a "hematoma and a laceration on the back of [Joshua's] head," plus "a bruise and an abrasion on the back of the arm of Kimberly Reese[,] and also the side of her face where there's an abrasion...." When Officer Thomas stated that "she [Kimberly Reese] reported that he [defendant] pushed her up against a tree," defendant objected to hearsay. The State offered this testimony "to show the reason why the officer took that particular photograph and for no other purpose." (Emphasis supplied.) The trial court "allow[ed] him [Officer Thomas] to testify, but not as to the truthfulness of what was told to him." (Emphasis supplied.)
The victims were not under subpoena to appear at this revocation hearing, although "they knew that this hearing was going to come up." Officer Thomas understood Kimberly Reese was in Utah at the time. He reported that Reese "came in a couple of days after this and wanted to make a — wanted to change her statement."
The trial court revoked probation and ordered defendant to serve four years. Defendant's application for discretionary appeal was granted by this Court and a timely notice of appeal was filed. Held:
On appeal, defendant contends there is no competent evidence to support the allegations that he violated the terms of his probation by committing the new offenses of cruelty to children and battery. We agree and reverse.
1. "[No] court may revoke any part of any probated or suspended sentence unless the defendant admits the violation as alleged or unless the evidence produced at the revocation hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the violation or violations alleged." OCGA § 42-8-34.1(a). But in the case sub judice, there simply is no evidence of record, hearsay or otherwise, identifying defendant as the cause of the hematoma and laceration on the back of Joshua's head.
2. There is no competent evidence in this record that defendant committed the new offense, of battery against his sister, Kimberly Reese.
Goodson v. State, 213 Ga. App. 283, 284, 444 S.E.2d 603, applying the whole court decision in Barnett v. State, 194 Ga.App. 892, 392 S.E.2d 322.
(a) In the case sub judice, the trial court admitted the testimony of Officer Thomas relating a statement by the victim Kimberly Reese to the effect that defendant pushed her up against a tree with the express proviso that it was not allowable to show the truth of that statement. Although the State submits on appeal that the contents of the victims' statements to the investigating officer are admissible as res gestae, this argument was eschewed below when the State's attorney informed the trial court that the hearsay objected to by defendant was submitted only to show why the officer took photographs of the victims,2 "and for no other purpose."
(b) Next, the State argues that the contents of the victims' statements are admissible as a "necessity" exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay, under OCGA § 24-3-1(b).
"The two underlying reasons for any exception to the hearsay rule are a necessity for the exception and a circumstantial guaranty of the trustworthiness of the offered evidence—that is, there must be something...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Lawrence
...although they have held that hearsay is inadmissible and of no probative value in probation revocation hearings. Overby v. State, 237 Ga.App. 730, 732(2), 516 S.E.2d 585 (1999); Goodson v. State, 213 Ga.App. 283, 284, 444 S.E.2d 603 (1994); Barnett v. State, 194 Ga.App. 892, 893, 392 S.E.2d......
- Scott v. State
-
Ware v. State
...applicable to probation revocation proceedings to show she committed the new offense of aggravated assault. See Overby v. State, 237 Ga.App. 730, 731(1), 516 S.E.2d 585 (1999). Judgment ANDREWS, P.J., concurs. ELLINGTON, J., concurs in the judgment only. 1. Ware had previously been sentence......
-
Brown v. State
...tag number was hearsay, but was admitted under res gestae exception). 11. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Overby v. State, 237 Ga.App. 730, 732(2), 516 S.E.2d 585 (1999) (officer's hearsay testimony in probation revocation hearing that victim reported that defendant shoved her against ......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...State, 234 Ga. App. 335, 506 S.E.2d 683 (1998). 446. 236 Ga. App. 239, 511 S.E.2d 295 (1999). 447. Id. at 240, 511 S.E.2d at 297. 448. 237 Ga. App. 730, 516 S.E.2d 585 (1999). 449. O.C.G.A. Sec. 16-31-20 to -56 (1999). 450. 237 Ga. App. at 731, 516 S.E.2d at 586. 451. Id. 452. Id. 453. Id. ......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue, Laura D. Hogue, and Marcus S. Henson
...537 S.E.2d 340, 342-43 (2000). 129. Id. at 41-42, 537 S.E.2d at 343-44. 130. Id. at 42, 537 S.E.2d at 344. 131. See Overby v. State, 237 Ga. App. 730, 516 S.E.2d 585 (1999); Farmer v. State, 266 Ga. 869, 472 S.E.2d 70 (1996). 132. Williams v. Lawrence, 273 Ga. 295, 298, 540 S.E.2d 599, 602 ......