Redd v. State
| Decision Date | 06 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A0908,A96A0908 |
| Citation | 474 S.E.2d 651,222 Ga.App. 595 |
| Parties | REDD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hunnicutt & Samper, Ricardo G. Samper, La Grange, for appellant.
Ronnie L. Redd, pro se.
Peter J. Skandalakis, Dist. Atty., Lynda S. Engel, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Ronnie Lamont Redd was convicted of armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41) and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The State's chief witness, a convenience store cashier, identified Redd as the man who entered his establishment, pointed a gun at him, and demanded the "tens and twenties" from the cash register. The trial court denied Redd's motion for new trial, and he appeals. Held:
1. Redd claims the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance to secure an alibi witness who did not appear for trial. His attorney stated he delivered to the sheriff's office three subpoenas for service on three alibi witnesses. Two of those witnesses appeared for trial and testified, even though they apparently did not receive the subpoenas. Redd does not claim the sheriff's office failed to exercise due diligence in serving the subpoena on the missing witness. See Shaw v. State, 163 Ga.App. 615, 618(2), 294 S.E.2d 676 (1982) (), rev'd on other grounds, 251 Ga. 109, 303 S.E.2d 448 (1983). Because Redd did not show that the witness had been subpoenaed, that she lived within 100 miles of the court, or that he expected to procure her testimony at the next term of court, as required by OCGA § 17-8-25, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Curry v. State, 177 Ga.App. 609(1), 340 S.E.2d 250 (1986).
2. Redd also complains his character was improperly injected into the trial through the testimony of the convenience store cashier. The cashier testified he had seen Redd in the store the night before the robbery and explained that a co-worker asked Redd and his companion to leave the store. The State then asked, "And [the co-worker] told them to leave the store?" The witness replied, "Yes, because he didn't want them shoplifting in there." Redd moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied. We find no error. Chapman v. State, 217 Ga.App. 264, 265(2), 457 S.E.2d 206 (1995). This unsolicited comment explained the cashier's reason for remembering Redd's prior visit to the store. Although the statement showed the co-worker was suspicious of Redd or his companion, the witness did not impugn Redd's character because nothing he said indicated Redd had a criminal record or had ever been arrested for shoplifting. Id. Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Postell v. State
...remark impugned Postell's character. See generally Pettis v. State, 224 Ga.App. 77, 78-79(2), 479 S.E.2d 460 (1996); Redd v. State, 222 Ga.App. 595(2), 474 S.E.2d 651 (1996). Moreover, Postell made no objection to the testimony at trial and did not preserve the argument for review on appeal......
-
Choat v. State, A00A1604.
...OCGA § 17-8-25. We therefore cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Redd v. State, 222 Ga.App. 595(1), 474 S.E.2d 651 (1996). Moreover, because both witnesses in fact appeared and testified, this ground for a continuance is Finally, after Cho......