Sanford v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0784,A90A0784 |
| Parties | SANFORD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Waddell, Emerson, George & Buice, E. Angela Emerson, Milledgeville, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Albert C. Martinez, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He brings this appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial. Held:
1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting an undercover agent to testify that he had "made purchases" at the appellant's residence on several prior occasions, as this testimony impermissibly placed his character into evidence. We disagree. The appellant took the position at trial that the agent had him confused with someone else, and similar transaction evidence is admissible under such circumstances to prove identity. See State v. Johnson, 246 Ga. 654(1), 272 S.E.2d 321 (1980).
2. Asked by his attorney on direct examination whether he knew of anyone else who might have sold cocaine at his residence, the appellant responded in the negative. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in thereafter allowing the state's attorney to cross-examine him concerning the fact that his father was at that time serving a prison sentence for selling cocaine from the same location. As the testimony in question was received without objection, this contention presents nothing for review. See generally Shy v. State, 190 Ga.App. 370, 378 S.E.2d 920 (1989).
3. Generally speaking, Barnes v. State, 171 Ga.App. 478(4), 320 S.E.2d 597 (1984).
4. The evidence was amply sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Davis v. State
-
Hunter v. State
...of appellant's prior conviction on the issue of identity outweighed its prejudicial effect. See generally Sanford v. State, 196 Ga.App. 103, 104(1), 395 S.E.2d 373 (1990). Accordingly, when consideration of the instant appeal is confined to only those issues that are properly before us, a r......
-
Mullen v. State, A91A2058
...charge on circumstantial evidence where none is present, since such an instruction is favorable to the accused. Sanford v. State, 196 Ga.App. 103, 104(3), 395 S.E.2d 373 (1990). Accordingly, this enumeration of error is also without Judgment affirmed. CARLEY, P.J., and BEASLEY, J., concur. ...
-
State v. Hulsey, A94A1964
... ... In its sole enumeration of error the State asserts the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment based on his plea of former jeopardy. We agree and reverse ... Defendant Hulsey secured information about a man named Roy Sanford and used this information to obtain a driver's license in Sanford's name. When the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence, he produced this license. Defendant also secured a loan from ITT Financial Services using Sanford's name and, through a fraudulent credit application, used ... ...