State v. Barnes, A96A2160
Decision Date | 24 September 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A2160,A96A2160 |
Citation | 222 Ga.App. 875,476 S.E.2d 646 |
Parties | The STATE v. BARNES. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Benjamin F. Smith, Jr., Solicitor, Keith M. Olmert, Cindi T. Yeager, Barry E. Morgan, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant.
Judson R. Knighton, Marietta, for appellee.
The State appeals the order of the trial judge from the State Court of Cobb County granting appellee's plea in bar and the subsequent dismissal of the accusation charging appellee with the offense of DUI.
During the jury trial, Officer Christie Lynn Dale, a two-year veteran of the Cobb County Police Department, testified that she had been dispatched to an auto accident call at Cardell Road in Cobb County; Officer Dale was not the first officer called to the scene, and by the time she arrived, the vehicles involved in the accident were empty. Appellee, swaying and smelling strongly of alcohol, was standing alongside the cars.
Officer Dale had been instructed prior to trial not to mention anything she might have been told by other persons who were present on the scene, as this information would be inadmissible hearsay; therefore, Dale was unable, through her own testimony, to place appellee behind the wheel of one of the cars involved in the accident, although she was aware that he had been through information given to her from a bystander, James Freeman. Mr. Freeman was not available to testify at trial.
After court had concluded for the day, Officer Dale expressed to the prosecutor her frustration that, because of the hearsay rule, she had been unable to convey to the jury the extent of her knowledge of the incident; Officer Dale referred to her necessarily incomplete testimony as "lying" to the jury. Counsel for appellee overheard these comments and brought the matter to the court's attention before trial commenced the next morning. Defense counsel's position was that Dale's comments reflected that her testimony on the previous day had been false and that the jury had a right to this information. All parties agreed that the officer's reference to her testimony as "lying" was a proper subject for examination before the jury.
In an attempt to do "damage control," the prosecutor brought up the issue during her redirect of Officer Dale. Dale explained Thereafter, defense counsel objected and made a motion for mistrial out of the presence of the jury on the grounds that Dale's explanation implied that the officer was being forced to "hide" information from the jury; the trial court denied the motion; Dale was instructed to refrain from giving the impression that evidence was being "suppressed"; and the examination continued.
The prosecutor again asked the officer to explain to the jury the reason for her comments about lying; Officer Dale explained Defense counsel made another motion for mistrial outside the presence of the jury on the same grounds as before; defense counsel's argument included the notion that the officer should not have been allowed to explain her comments at all: A lengthy discussion ensued which included the trial court's recognition of the validity of the officer's obvious frustration: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caldwell v. State
...34. Bellamy v. State, 243 Ga.App. 575, 577(1)(b), 530 S.E.2d 243 (2000). 35. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Barnes, 222 Ga.App. 875, 877, 476 S.E.2d 646 (1996). 36. Court of Appeals Rule ...
-
Paul v. State
...States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). 3. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Barnes, 222 Ga.App. 875, 877, 476 S.E.2d 646 (1996). 4. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679(II), 102 S.Ct. 2083 ("[where the governmental] conduct giving rise to the......
-
Graham v. State
...(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343, 344, 398 S.E.2d 375 (1990). See also State v. Barnes, 222 Ga.App. 875, 476 S.E.2d 646 (1996); Wells v. State, 212 Ga.App. 60, 441 S.E.2d 460 Finally, this trial involved testimony of two very young victims, who test......
-
Weems v. State
...into seeking a mistrial, we decline to overrule State v. Maddox, 185 Ga.App. 674, 365 S.E.2d 516 (1988) and State v. Barnes, 222 Ga.App. 875, 476 S.E.2d 646 (1996), and impute his instigative intent to the Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1. Appellant was arrested seven weeks aft......