Poole v. State, A91A1111
| Decision Date | 21 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1111,A91A1111 |
| Citation | 411 S.E.2d 562,201 Ga.App. 554 |
| Parties | POOLE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
M. Randall Peek, for appellant.
Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., Richard J. Weaver, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. She brings this appeal from the denial of her motion for new trial.
1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the state's attorney made a reference during his opening statement to a prior cocaine distribution offense committed by her. She contends that this remark was improper because the trial court had not yet held a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence in question, pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.2. The state had served notice of its intention to present evidence of the similar transactions well in advance of trial, in compliance with Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1, and a hearing was conducted during the trial, following which the evidence was ruled admissible. Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141, 144(6), 390 S.E.2d 841 (1990).
2. The appellant challenges the trial court's ruling permitting the state to introduce evidence of the similar transactions which consisted of certified copies of two prior convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and one prior conviction of sale of cocaine, to which she had pled guilty. After the state had established a prima facie case of similarity at the hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B), the proof at trial demonstrated that on two previous occasions, the appellant sold a quantity of cocaine to an undercover GBI officer; and on a third occasion, an undercover purchase of cocaine was made from an individual who handed the monetary proceeds of that sale to the appellant. Accordingly, there was adequate "evidence to establish between the independent crime[s] and the crime on trial such similarity to and logical connection with each other so that proof of the independent crime tends to establish, by evidence of identity, bent of mind, or intent, the commission of the crime for which [the appellant] is on trial." Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 469, 405 S.E.2d 483 (1991).
3. The appellant contends that the trial court improperly propounded questions to several witnesses in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. However, since no objection was made to the questioning at trial, this contention presents nothing for review on appeal. See Parrish v. State, 182 Ga.App. 247(3), 355 S.E.2d 682 (1987).
4. The trial court did not err in charging the jury that "in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State, A92A1584
...of the crime for which [the defendant] is on trial.' Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 469 (405 SE2d 483) (1991)." Poole v. State, 201 Ga.App. 554(2), 411 S.E.2d 562 (1991). See also Hickey v. State, 202 Ga.App. 636, 415 S.E.2d 60 (1992); Banks v. State, 201 Ga.App. 266(1), 410 S.E.2d 818 (19......
-
Jackson v. State
...set forth in Stephens for admitting into evidence the certified copy of the prior conviction were thus met. See Poole v. State, 201 Ga.App. 554(2), 411 S.E.2d 562 (1991). 3. Appellant contends the trial court erred by finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Appellant raise......