The State v. Anderson, S09G1523.
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Citation | 695 S.E.2d 26,287 Ga. 159 |
| Docket Number | No. S09G1523.,S09G1523. |
| Parties | The STATEv.ANDERSON. |
| Decision Date | 17 May 2010 |
287 Ga. 159
695 S.E.2d 26
The STATE
v.
ANDERSON.
No. S09G1523.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 17, 2010.
William J. Mason, Columbus, for appellee.
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice.
In Anderson v. State, 297 Ga.App. 733, 678 S.E.2d 498 (2009), the Court of Appeals reversed George Anderson's convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and financial transaction card fraud, holding that the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 1 by expressing an opinion as to whether venue had been proven on the fraud charge. We granted the State's petition for certiorari in order to consider the propriety of that ruling and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. The evidence adduced at trial established that the manager of a Sally Beauty Supply store received a telephone call just before 9:00 one morning, asking what time the store opened. Shortly after the manager told the male caller that the store was already open, an armed, masked man entered. He pointed a gun at the manager, ordered her to the back of the store, removed money from the store's registers and safe, and took the manager's credit cards from her purse. At approximately 10:15 that morning, Anderson bought a pair of sneakers from an Underground Station store using one of the stolen credit cards. The salesperson knew Anderson because he was a regular customer, and identified him both in a photographic lineup on the day of the crimes and at trial. Anderson's cell phone records showed that he called the Sally Beauty Supply at 8:58 on the morning of the crimes, using a calling feature to block his number from displaying on the receiving phone's “Caller ID.”
At trial, the location of Sally Beauty Supply was clearly established through the store manager's testimony. When the prosecutor attempted to elicit testimony from the Underground Station employee as to that store's location, however, the following transpired:
Q: Okay. Ms. Dexter, where are you employed at currently?
A: Underground Station.
Q: And located where?
A: You want Columbus?
Q: Columbus?
A: Uh-huh (positive response).
Q: Okay. Where were you employed last July?
A: Underground Station at Peachtree Mall.
Q: Okay. And is that here in Muscogee County?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Are there more than one? You've identified one as Columbus and one at Peachtree Mall.
A: Well, I work in Atlanta now at the same.
THE COURT: At the same one, but you worked at the Underground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rouse v. State
...potentially influencing jurors in their evaluation of whether the State has met its burden of proof at trial. See also State v. Anderson, 287 Ga. 159, 161, 695 S.E.2d 26 (2010) (holding that trial court's question whether venue had been established and questioning of a witness as to the loc......
-
Johnson v. State
...statement and did not express or intimate an opinion regarding the credibility of the evidence being offered") with State v. Anderson , 287 Ga. 159, 160-161 (1), 695 S.E.2d 26 (2010) (finding that the trial court's questioning of a witness was an expression of opinion that venue had been pr......
-
Smith v. the State.
...venue” was immediately followed by a question as to whether venue had been proven. Id. at 635, 690 S.E.2d 164. But in State v. Anderson, 287 Ga. 159, 695 S.E.2d 26 (2010), the Supreme Court upheld this Court's determination that a violation of OCGA § 17–8–57 had occurred. In Anderson, the S......
-
Moore v. State
...claim as an alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 (a) because the single case Moore cites in support of this argument, State v. Anderson, 287 Ga. 159 (695 S.E.2d 26) (2010), addresses that statute. Moore also states at the end of the section of his brief on this argument that his "right to du......