Toledo v. State
Decision Date | 20 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A94A2184,A94A2184 |
Citation | 455 S.E.2d 595,216 Ga.App. 480 |
Parties | TOLEDO v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Waller, III, Stone Mountain, for appellant.
Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Tracy R. Aronovitz, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, for appellee.
Defendant was tried before a jury on a multi-count indictment for sexually molesting his step-child and found guilty on five counts of committing separate acts of child molestation. This appeal followed. Held:
1. Defendant Rayburn v. State, 194 Ga.App. 676(2), 391 S.E.2d 780, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 434, 112 L.Ed.2d 417. See Frazier v. State, 195 Ga.App. 109, 112(7), 393 S.E.2d 262.
2. Next, defendant contends the "trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider statements [he] made [while in police custody] which were not voluntarily made when considered in the totality of the circumstances." Specifically, defendant asserts he was confused during the police interrogation because he "is Cuban [and] speaks with a heavy Hispanic accent, and it is obvious from his written statement and his testimony ... that his grammar is far from perfect." To this extent, defendant argues that the jury misunderstood his statement to an interrogating officer that a relative had just advised him (during a telephone conversation from police headquarters) "not to admit to anything or make any deals." Defendant also argues that the following custodial statement was taken out of context and likewise subjected the jury to misunderstanding:
Sumpter v. State, 260 Ga. 683(2)(b), 398 S.E.2d 12. In the case sub judice, Investigator Jerry Lungren of the Gwinnett County Police Department testified at a hearing pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, that defendant clearly communicated via use of the English language during the entire interrogation process; that defendant responded affirmatively when the officer asked defendant before questioning if he could read and speak English and that defendant demonstrated his language skills both before and after questioning by audibly reading a form (written in English) containing the rights prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and by correcting a handwritten transcription of his custodial statement. Investigator Lungren further testified that defendant affirmed full understanding of his Miranda rights; that defendant waived these rights before questioning and that defendant was not threatened, promised any hope of benefit or otherwise coerced during the interrogation process. This evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant had full command of the English language during the interrogation procedure; that defendant understood the purpose and nature of the custodial interrogation and that defendant's custodial statements were freely and voluntarily given. See Bonilla v. State, 204 Ga.App. 424, 426(3), 419 S.E.2d 495. Moreover, the meaning, weight and credibility of defendant's custodial statements were for the jury. See Smith v. State, 159 Ga.App. 468, 469, 284 S.E.2d 21.
3. Contrary to defendant's third enumeration, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two photographs depicting the victim at her mother's wedding to defendant. These photographs were taken four years before defendant's trial (at a time when the victim was nine years of age) and reflect the victim's immature physical development. The victim testified that defendant began sexually molesting her soon after her mother's wedding to defendant. Under these circumstances, the photographs were relevant to show the victim's immature physical development at the time defendant allegedly began molesting the victim. See Guess v. State, 264 Ga. 335, 336(3), 443 S.E.2d 477.
4. In his fourth enumeration, defendant contends the "trial court erred in allowing testimony by the State's witnesses which tended to indicate bad character, where [defendant] had not opened the door to such testimony." Defendant cites three separate Obiozor v. State, 213 Ga.App. 523, 527(4), 445 S.E.2d 553.
Even though it does not appear any of the evidentiary rulings challenged in this enumeration provide a basis for new trial, we elect to review defendant's first assertion that the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify that defendant informed her "[t]hat if I did all this to [the victim] that they're saying I did, ... I don't remember it [because] I was either drunk or stoned at the time." Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 599(11), 600, 351 S.E.2d 625. To this extent, it provided proof of defendant's consciousness of possible guilt. See Cable v. State, 191 Ga.App. 46, 47(2), 380 S.E.2d 715.
5. Defendant contends in his fifth enumeration that "[t]he trial court erred in denying [his] Motions for Mistrial and in overruling [his] objections to the admission of improper testimony by several of the State's witnesses." Again, defendant violates OCGA § 5-6-40 by asserting three separate assignments of error in the argument supporting this enumeration. Nonetheless, we have examined all three contentions and find that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Felix v. State
...v. Crook, 225 Ga.App. 578(3), 484 S.E.2d 327 (1997); Howard v. State, 220 Ga.App. 267(4), 469 S.E.2d 396 (1996); Toledo v. State, 216 Ga.App. 480(4), 455 S.E.2d 595 (1995); McGee v. State, 205 Ga.App. 722(7), 423 S.E.2d 666 The disparate application of OCGA § 5-6-40 has resulted from the Co......
-
McClain v. State
...denying involvement in the crime. OCGA § 24-3-53; Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 600, 351 S.E.2d 625 (1987); Toledo v. State, 216 Ga.App. 480, 482, 455 S.E.2d 595 (1995); Cable v. State, 191 Ga.App. 46, 47, 380 S.E.2d 715 (1989). McClain's argument that the admission of this testimony v......
-
Tinker v. State, A95A1789
...may elect to review none, or one or more, of the errors asserted within the single enumeration. [Cits.]" Toledo v. State, 216 Ga.App. 480, 482(4), 455 S.E.2d 595 (1995). We will address only the issue of the denial of a continuance. Even if properly enumerated, we need not address the conte......
-
O'HARA v. State
...into evidence, so the jury was free to determine what meaning, weight, and credibility to accord that statement. Toledo v. State, 216 Ga.App. 480, 481(2), 455 S.E.2d 595 (1995). Even assuming that the trial court erred in refusing to permit O'Hara to read aloud his prior statement, any erro......