Samples v. State, 66940
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 66940,66940 |
| Citation | 314 S.E.2d 448,169 Ga.App. 605 |
| Parties | SAMPLES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
David E. Perry, Tifton, for appellant.
Thomas H. Pittman, Dist. Atty., Robert C. Wilmot, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of one count of child molestation and one count of aggravated sodomy. His motion for new trial was denied and he appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the guilty verdicts.
1. The general grounds are enumerated. The evidence authorized the guilty verdicts. See generally Quong v. State, 157 Ga.App. 532(1), 278 S.E.2d 122 (1981); Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(1), 239 S.E.2d 168 (1977).
2. Appellant filed a motion in limine to prohibit the introduction of testimony concerning his commission of other acts of child molestation. The motion was denied and, at trial, two children were allowed to testify that appellant had molested them. The denial of the motion in limine and the admission of the testimony concerning other acts of molestation are enumerated as error.
The motion in limine was not erroneously denied. See Gunthorpe v. Daniels, 150 Ga.App. 113, 257 S.E.2d 199 (1979); Ailstock v. State, 159 Ga.App. 482(1), 283 S.E.2d 698 (1981). The testimony concerning appellant's prior acts of molestation was not erroneously admitted. See Walls v. State, 166 Ga.App. 503(1), 304 S.E.2d 547 (1983); Pollock v. State, 162 Ga.App. 757, 293 S.E.2d 38 (1982); Sullivan v. State, 162 Ga.App. 297, 291 S.E.2d 127 (1982); Beldonza v. State, 160 Ga.App. 647, 288 S.E.2d 37 (1981); Phelps v. State, 158 Ga.App. 219, 279 S.E.2d 513 (1981).
3. Appellant asserts that the victim and one of the two children who testified as to the prior acts of molestation were not competent to testify. Our review of the relevant portions of the transcript demonstrates that both children were shown to be competent witnesses. See generally Bearden v. State, 159 Ga.App. 892(1), 285 S.E.2d 606 (1981). Compare Pace v. State, 157 Ga.App. 442, 278 S.E.2d 90 (1981).
4. Over a hearsay objection, the victim's teacher was permitted to testify as to certain voluntary and spontaneous statements made to her by the victim concerning appellant's acts of molestation. As related by the teacher, the victim's statements were made some hours after the event which was described therein. The testimony was admitted as being within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. Appellant asserts that the statements attributed to the victim were made at a time too far removed from the events described therein to qualify as a part of the res gestae.
In the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court, it was held that "a trial judge's determination that evidence offered as part of the res gestae is sufficiently informative and reliable as to warrant being considered by the jury will not be disturbed on appeal unless that determination is clearly erroneous." Andrews v. State, 249 Ga. 223, 228, 290 S.E.2d 71 (1982). Applying the Andrews standard, we are unable to say that under the circumstances which existed in the instant case, the admission of the challenged testimony as part of the res gestae was clearly erroneous. Hutter v. State, 166 Ga.App. 608(2), 305 S.E.2d 124 (1983).
5. Appellant's final enumeration of error concerns a remark made by the district attorney in his closing argument for the state. The transcript demonstrates that, after the remark was made, defense counsel objected and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard it. The trial court did so and rebuked the district attorney for having made the comment. The district attorney then apologized to the court. No motion for mistrial was ever made.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park v. State
...249 Ga. 223, 228, 290 S.E.2d 71 (1982).29 See Williams v. State, 180 Ga.App. 562, 563(1), 349 S.E.2d 797 (1986); Samples v. State, 169 Ga.App. 605, 606(4), 314 S.E.2d 448 (1984).30 177 Ga.App. 13, 338 S.E.2d 694 (1985).31 Id., at 14-15(2), 338 S.E.2d 694 (citations, punctuation and emphasis......
-
Taylor v. State
...State, 166 Ga.App. 503, 505(3), 304 S.E.2d 547 (1983); Clark v. State, 167 Ga.App. 259(2), 306 S.E.2d 60 (1983); Samples v. State, 169 Ga.App. 605, 606(3), 314 S.E.2d 448 (1984); Overton v. State, 230 Ga. 830, 836(5), 199 S.E.2d 205 (1973); Price v. State, 233 Ga. 332, 334(2), 211 S.E.2d 29......
-
Lee v. State
...court's action in response to the objection, "it was incumbent upon him to request further curative action." Samples v. State, 169 Ga.App. 605, 607(5), 314 S.E.2d 448 (1984). No error was committed by the trial court in denying a new trial on this ground raised as a violation of the federal......
-
Brantley v. State, 70257
...v. State, 174 Ga.App. 536(1), 330 S.E.2d 765 (1985); Sparks v. State, 172 Ga.App. 891(1), 324 S.E.2d 824 (1984); Samples v. State, 169 Ga.App. 605(4), 314 S.E.2d 448 (1984). Compare Sanborn v. State, 159 Ga.App. 608(1), 284 S.E.2d 110 (1981), and 3. Defendant's remaining enumeration of erro......