Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49906,No. 2,49906,2 |
| Citation | 133 Ga.App. 466,211 S.E.2d 415 |
| Parties | Robert L. SCOTT v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Herndon & Hubble, Robert E. Herndon, Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Astt. Dist. Atty., David Wansley, Warren C. Grice, Roy C. Maddox, Jr., John Adams, Law Students, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant appeals from the judgment convicting him of violations of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act by unlawful possession of heroin and chloral hydrate, and the sentencing therefor.
1. The trial judge did not err in allowing in evidence over objection, for such weight as the jury might give it, the testimony of the state's expert witness from the state crime laboratory, and five untested glassine packets of white powder. From the six visually identical packets which were secured together by a rubber band in the defendant's possession, the witness selected one at random for testing, and determined it to contain heroin. That packet was marked for identification and admitted in evidence. Although the admission of the untested packets was not essential, since the possession of any amount of heroin is an offense, it was not reversible error, since the jury might conclude from the circumstantial evidence that all six packets contained heroin. The Alabama case of Parks v. State, 49 Ala.App. 32, 268 So.2d 498 (1972), cited by the appellant, is distinguishable in that various kinds of containers and different substances not even sent to the crime lab, were there introduced, whereas the evidence here admitted was identical in size, appearance and packaging and had all been sent to the crime lab.
2. The trial judge did not commit reversible error in failing to grant the defendant's motion for mistrial, based on the statement of the state's witness, detective Allison: 'I talked to a reliable informer who told me that a colored male (which the defendant is) was down at Poplar Street at Peyton Place and was supposed to have been selling heroin for $8.' It was not shown that the defendant was the only 'colored male' at Peyton Place at that time. Although the statement was hearsay, and may have placed the defendant's character in issue and constituted proof of a distinct, independent, and separate offense (selling heroin), it was not admitted in evidence. The judge sustained the objection, instructed the witness to rephrase the response, then instructed the jury to disregard the previous response. It not appearing that there has been a manifest abuse of the trial judge's broad discretion in passing on motions for mistrial and that a mistrial is essential to the preservation of a fair trial, this court will not disturb his ruling on the motion. See Jones v. State, 128 Ga.App. 885(1), 198 S.E.2d 336 and cits.
3. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant's request for disclosure of the identity of the informer, who was a witness to the transaction which resulted in the defendant's arrest. 'The scope of the informer's privilege is in the descretion of the trial judge.' Welch v. State, 130 Ga.App. 18, 20, 202 S.E.2d 223, 225 and cits. 'The fact that the informant is a witness is not controlling where such evidence is not necessary to obtain a conviction.' Estevez v. State, 130 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...jury could conclude from the identical physical characteristics of all three bags that it also contained cocaine. See Scott v. State, 133 Ga.App. 466(1), 211 S.E.2d 415; Rogers v. State, 130 Ga.App. 176(5), 202 S.E.2d 2. Enumeration of error 2 complains that appellant was required to procee......
- Brown v. State
-
Smith v. State, 53562
...State, 128 Ga.App. 885(1), 198 S.E.2d 336 (1973); see Gasaway v. State, 137 Ga.App. 653(3), 224 S.E.2d 772 (1976); Scott v. State, 133 Ga.App. 466(2), 211 S.E.2d 415 (1974). 4. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling objections and motions for mistrial as to testimon......
-
McHugh v. State
...express authorization to this effect by the jury. Bradshaw v. State, 132 Ga.App. 363(4), 208 S.E.2d 173. Similarly, in Scott v. State, 133 Ga.App. 466, 211 S.E.2d 415 we held that the trial judge erred in imposing the jury's sentence to be computed after the expiration of a pre-existing sen......