Page v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1795,A90A1795 |
| Parties | PAGE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Larsen & Flanders, H. Gibbs Flanders, Jr., Dublin, for appellant.
Ralph M. Walke, Dist. Atty., L. Craig Fraser, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Joseph Page appeals his conviction for two counts of distribution of cocaine. The evidence showed that on two certain occasions police gave an informant money to buy cocaine and observed the informant enter appellant's house. On the first occasion the informant was equipped with a recording device but the recording of the transaction was very vague and general. The informant was searched before he entered appellant's house on the second occasion, and was given money; upon leaving appellant's house, he was searched again and found to possess cocaine but no money. This time, the recording device malfunctioned and there was no recording of the transaction. The informant testified that on each occasion it was appellant who sold him cocaine in appellant's house.
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and complains that there was a break in the chain of custody of the drug sample and that he was not allowed to cross-examine the forensic expert as to the activities of a person in the state crime lab. Held:
1. Appellant in essence contends the jury should not have believed the testimony of the paid informant, who was a drug user. However, it is not within our province to judge the credibility of witnesses, or to say that as a matter of law a drug user is not a credible witness. On appeal we are required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Rios v. State, 193 Ga.App. 485, 486, 388 S.E.2d 527. Not only was it the prerogative of the jury to find credible the informant's identification of appellant as the drug seller, but moreover his testimony does not stand alone but is supported by evidence that it was appellant's house in which the witness acquired cocaine. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we find that any rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Rios, supra.
2. Appellant's contentions concerning an attempt to show a break in the chain of custody of the cocaine are without substance. There is no suggestion of tampering or substitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. State
...220 Ga.App. 215, 218, 469 S.E.2d 353 (1996); Fletcher v. State, 197 Ga.App. 112, 113, 397 S.E.2d 605 (1990); see Page v. State, 198 Ga.App. 338, 339, 401 S.E.2d 564 (1991). 3. Appellant contends that during the jury charge, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury on certain facets of......
-
Thompson v. State, A91A1776
...hand and then to his own hand. The credibility issue thus presented was within the prerogative of the jury. Page v. State, 198 Ga.App. 338, 339 (1), 401 S.E.2d 564. Any rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the offenses charged. Jackson......
-
Keller v. State
...of witnesses. On appeal we are required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. See Page v. State, 198 Ga.App. 338, 339(1), 401 S.E.2d 564 (1991). It was the prerogative of the jury to find Keller's ex-wife's and his mother's pre-trial statements implicating him credi......
-
Mathis v. State, A92A0194
...v. State, 196 Ga.App. 71, 72 (395 SE2d 345)." Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 404 S.E.2d 296. See also Page v. State, 198 Ga.App. 338, 339(2), 401 S.E.2d 564. 2. In his second enumeration of error, defendant complains of the trial court's failure to charge the jury specifically ......