Quick v. State, 52157
| Decision Date | 15 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | 2,No. 52157,Nos. 1,3,52157,s. 1 |
| Citation | 139 Ga.App. 440,228 S.E.2d 592 |
| Parties | C. E. QUICK, Jr. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ham, Mills & Freeman, Phillip Benson Ham, Forsyth, for appellant.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., Barnesville, Kenneth R. Waldrep, Forsyth, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of selling phencyclidine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Held:
1. Defendant filed a discovery motion and a notice to produce. In response to these motions, the state furnished a list of witnesses and a copy of the report from the State Crime Laboratory. The state also advised the trial court that there was no evidence favorable to defendant in its files. The trial court then denied the motions. The defendant in a criminal case cannot compel the discovery and inspection of evidence in the possession of the state. Whitlock v. State, 124 Ga.App. 599, 185 S.E.2d 90. However, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, does require the state on defendant's request to disclose evidence favorable either to defendant's guilt or punishment. Insofar as defendant's motions may be treated as coming within the rule of Brady v. Maryland, there is no showing here that the state suppressed any favorable evidence. The denials of the discovery motions were correct.
2. A witness for the state, the Sheriff of Monroe County, was permitted over objection to testify as to the content of a telephone conversation he had with Dennis Smarr, the individual to whom defendant allegedly sold the phencyclidine. The substance of the conversation was that Smarr volunteered to act as an undercover agent for the sheriff by making drug purchases in the county. The trial court admitted the sheriff's testimony for the limited purpose of explaining motive or conduct of this witness or of Dennis Smarr. This testimony was explanatory of Smarr's conduct in purchasing controlled substances and was admissible. Code § 38-302 authorizes the admission of a conversation which otherwise might be inadmissible as hearsay when the conversation explains conduct and ascertains motive. In another drug case, Watson v. State, 137 Ga.App. 530, 224 S.E.2d 446, we held the same testimony which involved the same witnesses as in this case inadmissible and cause for reversal. An examination of the record in that case shows that this court reversed on its own motion without the benefit of an enumeration of error raising the issue.
This ruling of law is erroneous whether with or without the benefit of an enumeration of error and we therefore expressly overrule the holding in Division 3 of Watson.
3. The state's witness, Smarr, was permitted to testify over defendant's objection that he had used marijuana in Viet Nam. The objection was that whether the witness had used marijuana in a foreign country was irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this case. We agree that this testimony was inadmissible as a part of the state's case. However, the question could not have harmed the defendant as its only possible effect could have been to impeach one who was an adversary witness to the defendant. Nothing held in Watson v. State, supra requires a holding to the contrary.
4. In this case Smarr was permitted to testify over the objection that it was immaterial and irrelevant that while acting as a police agent he had purchased drugs from fourteen different persons. In Winget v. State, 138 Ga.App. 433, 226 S.E.2d 608, another drug case in which the same witness Smarr testified for the state, it was held that his testimony of 'buys' of drugs from others constituted grounds for reversal as the evidence was 'irrelevant and immaterial and introduced solely to bolster the good character of the undercover agent in the eyes of the jury.' The rationale of Winget that evidence of unrelated drug purchases was offered to 'bolster the good character' of the witness is an erroneous conclusion of law. To bolster a witness means to introduce evidence of the good reputation of a witness for truth and veracity, for the purpose of supporting the witness' testimony and is not admissible when offered by the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mafnas v. State, 56867
...evidence does not reasonably raise the issue that defendant may be only guilty of the lesser crime. (Cits.)" Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440, 443(5),228 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1976); Collins v. State, 146 Ga.App. 138(2), 245 S.E.2d 488 6. In Enumerations of error 6, 7 and 8 Mafnas complains that ......
-
Awtrey v. State
...the evidence does not reasonably raise the issue that defendant may be only guilty of the lesser crime. [Cits.]" Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440, 443, 228 S.E.2d 592 (1976). See also Wyley v. State, 169 Ga.App. 106, 109(2), 311 S.E.2d 530 (1983); Watson v. State, 235 Ga. 461, 465(5), 219 S.......
-
Redd v. State, 53512
...of the undercover agent, whose credibility was questioned because of his own previous use of marijuana. Cf., Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440, (3), 228 S.E.2d 592 (1976). Likewise, the admission in evidence of this testimony was not a ground for mistrial. Enumerated errors 1 and 2 are withou......
-
Watts v. State
...in a criminal case cannot compel the unfettered discovery and inspection of evidence in the possession of the state. Quick v. State, 139 Ga.App. 440, 441, 228 S.E.2d 592. Nor is the defendant entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigative reports made in......