Weathers v. State
Decision Date | 22 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A90A2294,A90A2294 |
Citation | 198 Ga.App. 871,403 S.E.2d 449 |
Parties | WEATHERS v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William J. Sussman, Augusta, for appellant.
Arthur Weathers, pro se.
Michael C. Eubanks, Dist. Atty., G. Barksdale Boyd, Richard E. Thomas, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of armed robbery. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury's guilty verdicts.
1. The admission into evidence of certain glass fragments found at the scene of the crime and blood samples taken therefrom is enumerated as error. The contention is that the State failed to establish a chain of custody for this evidence.
Welch v. State, 257 Ga. 197, 198(3), 357 S.E.2d 70 (1987). See also Usher v. State, 148 Ga.App. 719, 720(2), 252 S.E.2d 677 (1979). Usher v. State, supra at 720(2), 252 S.E.2d 677. See also White v. State, 230 Ga. 327, 335(4), 196 S.E.2d 849 (1973); Lockleer v. State, 188 Ga.App. 271, 272(2), 372 S.E.2d 663 (1988).
2. The trial court's exclusion of the testimony of a defense witness is enumerated as error. Appellant urges that the excluded testimony was relevant impeachment evidence showing that a State's witness had made a prior inconsistent statement.
Contrary to appellant's contentions, the excluded testimony did not show that the State's witness had made a prior inconsistent statement. The excluded testimony showed only that the State's witness had made a prior statement which was less expansive than her trial testimony. That the trial testimony of the State's witness merely included additional facts demonstrates no impeaching inconsistency with the excluded prior statement attributed to her. Thomas v. State, 168 Ga.App. 587(1), 309 S.E.2d 881 (1983).
3. Appellant's alleged accomplice was called as a defense witness and testified that he, and not appellant, committed the robbery. During cross-examination, the witness was asked whether he had written a letter to the District Attorney offering to testify against appellant if his sentences were shortened. The witness denied that he had written such a letter. Over appellant's objection to a lack of authentication, the State was thereafter permitted to question the witness with regard to the specific contents of the letter that he had denied writing. This evidentiary ruling is enumerated as error.
Authentication of a writing State v. Smith, 246 Ga. 129, 269 S.E.2d 21 (1980). The letter at issue in the instant case bore the witness' correct name, prison address and criminal identification number. As would be expected in a letter written by an alleged accomplice, the contents thereof indicated that its author had first-hand detailed knowledge of how the crime had been committed. For example, the author of the letter apparently knew that, in committing the crime, appellant had cut his hand and had left blood at the crime scene. Moreover, the witness, as appellant's alleged accomplice, had a peculiar interest in the District Attorney's acceptance of the letter's offer and was the only person who would have been able to fulfil the promise contained therein. Under all of these circumstances, it is very unlikely that anyone other than the witness had written the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...Ga.App. 587(1), 309 S.E.2d 881 (1983). See also Hightower v. State, 227 Ga.App. 74, 77(a), 487 S.E.2d 646 (1997); Weathers v. State, 198 Ga.App. 871(2), 403 S.E.2d 449 (1991). Smith never made any proffer of Hopkins' prior statements and, thus, never showed the absence of the particular sta......
-
Arevalo v. State
...v. State, 273 Ga. 872, 873(1), 548 S.E.2d 292 (2001); State v. Smith, 246 Ga. 129, 269 S.E.2d 21 (1980); Weathers v. State, 198 Ga.App. 871, 872(3), 403 S.E.2d 449 (1991). The lengthy letter here in question was written in Spanish, a circumstance which in and of itself limits the number of ......
-
Smith v. Vencare, Inc.
...her trial testimony, there could be no impeachment under OCGA § 24-9-83[.]" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Weathers v. State, 198 Ga.App. 871(2), 403 S.E.2d 449 (1991); accord Shearer v. State, 259 Ga. 51, 52(5), 376 S.E.2d 194 (1989); England v. Ga.-Fla. Co., 198 Ga.App. 704, 707(5),......
-
Hightower v. State
...additional facts demonstrates no impeaching inconsistency with the excluded prior statement attributed to her." Weathers v. State, 198 Ga.App. 871(2), 403 S.E.2d 449 (1991); see also Thomas v. State, supra at 587, 309 S.E.2d An inconsistent prior statement to subsequent testimony is the dif......