Stinson v. State, A96A0528
Decision Date | 18 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A0528,A96A0528 |
Citation | 221 Ga.App. 758,472 S.E.2d 538 |
Parties | STINSON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jonathan H. Lipsky, Decatur, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., William F. Riley, Jr., Juliette O. W. Scales, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Sam Stinson was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Stinson appeals.
Stinson conducted his trial pro se, with appointed counsel assisting him with voir dire and motions arguments. Under cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Stinson, "And you never had enough money to where you could live on your own?" Stinson responded, At this point, outside the presence of the jury, the State moved to introduce evidence of Stinson's 1984 guilty plea to five marijuana sales. Determining that Stinson had opened the door to the introduction of his prior conviction, the trial court, over Stinson's objection, permitted the State to question him about five previous marijuana arrests in July and August 1984 to which Stinson had entered a guilty plea. In the presence of the jury, the prosecutor asked Stinson if he were jobless would he then engage in criminal activity. Stinson testified that he was employed on each of the five dates specified, whereupon the State tendered certified copies of the indictment, guilty plea, and sentence. Stinson, the only defense witness, premised his defense on a mistaken identity theory, that the police inadvertently arrested the wrong man. After introducing the prior conviction evidence, the prosecutor queried Stinson as to whether he was the unluckiest person in the world, with undercover agents continually misidentifying him as a person selling drugs. Held:
1. The trial court erred in admitting the evidence of the guilty plea from 1984. OCGA § 24-9-20(b) provides that when a defendant chooses to testify "no evidence of general bad character or prior convictions shall be admissible unless and until the defendant shall have first put his character in issue." Id. Where a defendant has not placed his character in issue, proof of prior offenses or convictions is not admissible unless offered for some proper purpose, and not to show that the defendant is a person of bad character. Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 757, 363 S.E.2d 529 (1988); Williams v. State, 187 Ga.App. 564, 565-566(2), 370 S.E.2d 821 (1988). Compare Gaither v. State, 194 Ga.App. 213, 214(1), 390 S.E.2d 113 (1990) ( ). As a general rule, Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 469, 405 S.E.2d 483 (1991). To open the door to such evidence, a defendant must intentionally elect to place his good character in issue. Jones, 257 Ga. at 758, 363 S.E.2d 529.
The State's ostensible reason for using Stinson's prior conviction was its assertion that Stinson opened the door to this evidence. 1 We do not agree that Stinson intentionally elected to put his character in issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20(b) by his rambling, somewhat unresponsive answer. See McGuire v. State, 188 Ga.App. 891, 892(2), 374 S.E.2d 816 (1988) ( ). Compare Butts v. State, 193 Ga.App. 824, 825(2), 389 S.E.2d 395 (1989) ( ); Hayes v. State, 189 Ga.App. 39, 41(2), 375 S.E.2d 114 (1988) ( ). Nor was there any showing that the evidence was being introduced for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merritt v. State, A07A0947.
...version of OCGA § 24-9-20(b). See Lindsey v. State, 282 Ga. 447, 449(2), n. 4, 651 S.E.2d 66 (2007). 42. Stinson v. State, 221 Ga.App. 758, 759(1), 472 S.E.2d 538 (1996). 43. (Footnote omitted.) Donaldson v. State, 279 Ga.App. 407(1), 631 S.E.2d 443 44. (Citation omitted.) Hill v. State, 24......
-
Hill v. State
...the door to such evidence, a defendant must intentionally elect to place his good character in issue. [Cit.]" Stinson v. State, 221 Ga.App. 758, 759(1), 472 S.E.2d 538 (1996). Once the defendant is found to have intentionally opened the door, the prosecutor may respond with evidence of the ......
-
Lawrence v. State, A99A0801.
...it has not been found to be reversible error. Noggle v. State, 256 Ga. 383, 385-386(4), 349 S.E.2d 175 (1986); Stinson v. State, 221 Ga. App. 758, 759(2), 472 S.E.2d 538 (1996); see Frost v. State, 200 Ga.App. 267, 271(5), 407 S.E.2d 765 (1991). In any event, the charge as a whole properly ......
-
Dyer v. State, No. A03A0763.
...character in issue or the prior convictions are offered for some proper purpose. See OCGA § 24-9-20(b); see also Stinson v. State, 221 Ga.App. 758(1), 472 S.E.2d 538 (1996). However, "[w]here the defendant testifies and admits prior criminal conduct, he has not placed his character `in issu......