Smith v. State, A95A1284
| Decision Date | 28 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A1284,A95A1284 |
| Citation | 458 S.E.2d 704,217 Ga.App. 680 |
| Parties | SMITH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Maria T. Gonzalez, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carl P. Greenberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eddie Smith was convicted of possession of cocaine following a jury trial. Smith's motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.
1. The trial court's charge to the jury made it abundantly clear that it was the State's burden to prove Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the offense charged. Accordingly, Smith's attempt to show that the use of the phrase "moral and reasonable certainty" within that charge constituted reversible error is controlled adversely to him by the holding of the Supreme Court in Burgess v. State, 264 Ga. 777, 787(28), 450 S.E.2d 680 (1994). See also Baldwin v. State, 264 Ga. 664-666(1), 449 S.E.2d 853 (1994).
2. Smith contends that the cocaine seized by police was the product of an illegal arrest, and therefore the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree. It is undisputed that Smith was in a state of flight when he discarded the cocaine he now seeks to suppress, and contrary to Smith's arguments, being chased is not tantamount to being "seized" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Hunt v. State, 205 Ga.App. 490, 491, 423 S.E.2d 24 (1992). Under such circumstances, even if we assume that Smith ultimately was illegally seized and detained after being chased, that would not serve as a basis to suppress the cocaine at issue, since the contraband was discarded before the seizure effectively occurred. Hodari D., supra, 499 U.S. at 629, 111 S.Ct. at 1552; Anderson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 676, 677, 434 S.E.2d 122 (1993). Smith's enumerations on this ground are therefore without merit.
3. Smith contends that when the trial court recharged the jury on the law of controlled substances it should also have recharged the jury on the concept of reasonable doubt, on defenses at trial, and on the State's burden of proof. We find no merit in this contention. See, e.g., Bowles v. State, 168 Ga.App. 763, 765(4), 310 S.E.2d 250 (1983) (); Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga.App. 19, 21(2), 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983) ().
4. The testimony of the arresting officer to the effect that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walker
...alter matters as “ being chased is not tantamount to being ‘seized’ in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 217 Ga.App. 680(2), 458 S.E.2d 704 (1995) (Emphasis in original.) See also Sims v. State, 258 Ga.App. 662, 663, 574 S.E.2d 879 (2002) (“[B]ecause Sims threw awa......
-
Milton v. State
...and it cannot be said that it was the fruit of an illegal arrest." Hunt, supra at 491, 423 S.E.2d 24. See also Smith v. State, 217 Ga.App. 680(2), 458 S.E.2d 704 (1995). Accordingly, Milton was not "seized." Milton's failure to submit to the authority of the police officers is evident by th......
-
Barber v. State
...omitted.) Carson v. State, 314 Ga.App. 515, 724 S.E.2d 821 (2012). 3. (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Smith v. State, 217 Ga.App. 680(2), 458 S.E.2d 704 (1995). 4.Watson v. State, 247 Ga.App. 498, 544 S.E.2d 469 (2001). 5.Id. at 499, 544 S.E.2d 469. 6. (Footnote omitted.) Thompso......
-
Lucas v. INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES OF LESTER, INC.
... ... State Court of Fulton County against appellee Integrated Health Services of Lester, Inc. d/b/a Integrated ... Wilcher v. Smith, 256 Ga.App. 427, 428, 568 S.E.2d 589 (2002); Roberson v. Gnann, 235 Ga.App. 112, 114(2), 508 ... ...