Thomason v. State, A94A1849
| Citation | 215 Ga.App. 189,450 S.E.2d 283 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1849,A94A1849 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Parties | THOMASON v. The STATE. |
Douglas L. Henry, Clarkesville, for appellant.
Michael H. Crawford, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Following a trial by jury, the appellant, David Ray Thomason, was found guilty of one count of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, Thomason enumerates five errors. Held:
1. Thomason contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress based upon the insufficiency of the affidavit to support the issuance of the search warrant.
State v. Brown, 212 Ga.App. 800, 801, 442 S.E.2d 818 (1994).
An affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant State v. McKendree, 188 Ga.App. 290, 291, 372 S.E.2d 673 (1988). The informant, named on the face of the warrant, related to the affiant that he had personally observed Thomason fire a .22 caliber magnum derringer into a pine tree in a specific location on a property belonging to Thomason's brother. He stated that he had personally seen the resulting bullet holes and that Thomason's brother told him he purchased a .22 caliber magnum derringer for Thomason.
Corroboration available to the affiant included information that the victim, Ashley Clemmons, had been killed by a bullet fired from a .22 caliber magnum derringer. Pawn shop records confirmed that Thomason's brother had purchased such a weapon. Two witnesses to whom Thomason admitted killing Clemmons stated they had seen Thomason in possession of a .22 caliber "over and under" handgun on the night of the shooting. Moreover, the affiant stated that the informant's demeanor was truthful in relating the foregoing information and that the informant had been known to law enforcement throughout his life as an honest, law abiding citizen.
Construing the evidence in favor of the trial court's ruling, we conclude that the ruling was supported by some evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Brown, supra.
2. Thomason next enumerates as error the trial court's failure to allow him to make an offer of proof regarding the district attorney's claim that Thomason lacked standing to make the motion to suppress. The district attorney's challenge to Thomason's standing to argue the motion to suppress was not entertained by the court and Thomason's motion was heard and ruled upon by the court. Therefore, Thomason's argument is moot.
3. Thomason also enumerates error in that the trial court, over objection, permitted a witness to testify who was not on the list of witnesses provided to Thomason in response to a demand pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-110. In making his objection, Thomason's counsel did not request a continuance or otherwise seek an opportunity to conduct an interview prior to the witness being called to testify. See Tyus v. State, 196 Ga.App. 857, 858, 397 S.E.2d 194 (1990). The purpose of OCGA § 17-7-110, however, may be satisfied if the defendant is given a satisfactory opportunity to interview such a witness before the witness' testimony is taken. Carroll v. State, 208 Ga.App. 316, 318(4), 430 S.E.2d 649 (1993). The trial court provided Thomason such an opportunity. We therefore find this enumeration to be without merit.
4. Thomason contends that the trial court erred by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State
...753, 754(1), 420 S.E.2d 636 (1992). See also Gribble v. State, 248 Ga. 567, 572(7), 284 S.E.2d 277 (1981); Thomason v. State, 215 Ga.App. 189, 190(4), 450 S.E.2d 283 (1994). Moreover, nothing in the record shows that the warrant and affidavit were sent out with the jury. Stidem v. State, 24......
-
Peoples v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.
...the trial court ruled upon such issue. This Court cannot rule upon issues raised for the first time on appeal. Thomason v. State, 215 Ga.App. 189, 190(4), 450 S.E.2d 283 (1994). Such alleged error was not preserved for review on Judgment affirmed. BIRDSONG, P.J., and RUFFIN, J., concur. 1 W......
-
Byron v. State
...being admitted into evidence on this ground. Accordingly, this contention presents nothing for review. See Thomason v. State, 215 Ga.App. 189, 190(4), 450 S.E.2d 283 (1994). Byron also argues that the victim's in-court identification should have been excluded because he did not have an atto......
-
McDaniel v. State
...correction of legal errors and has no jurisdiction to address issues that are raised for the first time on appeal. Thomason v. State, 215 Ga.App. 189, 190(4), 450 S.E.2d 283. A motion for discharge and acquittal is the remedy for the claim that the court forced McDaniel to waive his demand ......