Whittington v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60213,60213 |
| Citation | 272 S.E.2d 532,155 Ga.App. 667 |
| Parties | WHITTINGTON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph M. Todd, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Harold G. Benefield, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction of the offense of motor vehicle theft. We affirm.
1. Appellant alleges error in the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial. Appellant's motion was premised upon his contention that the jury was unduly prejudiced by the fact that he was brought into the courtroom dressed in prison clothes. Under the authority of Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga.App. 835, 270 S.E.2d 61 (1980), we find no error.
The record shows that the prison clothing worn by appellant consisted of blue jeans and a brown or tan shirt, neither of which exhibited any marking of any kind commonly associated with prison uniforms. This being so, "(w)e conclude that appellant's clothing, though issued by the sheriff, was sufficiently 'civilian' to preclude the possibility of prejudice to appellant." Id., Division 1.
2. Nor do we find error in the admission of a certain business record into evidence, under Code Ann. § 38-711, over appellant's objection that the particular person who actually entered the information in the record did not testify. "It is not necessary that a witness identifying business records under Code Ann. § 38-711 have personal knowledge of the correctness of the records or have actually made the entries himself." Welborn v. State, 132 Ga.App. 207(4), 207 S.E.2d 688.
3. Appellant's enumerations of error on the general grounds are also without merit. There was evidence that a person fitting appellant's description attempted to take a cab to 212 Birch Street, Hapeville, Georgia (appellant's address); that he was refused cab service; and that this same person (fitting appellant's description) was subsequently observed driving away from the garage in the stolen automobile. Moreover, approximately one hour later, defendant was arrested in possession of the stolen automobile.
In view of the foregoing, and despite appellant's testimony to the contrary, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. See also McKenty v. State, 135 Ga.App. 271, 217...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...v. McCray, supra at 485(2), 402 S.E.2d 298; Davis v. State, 194 Ga.App. 902, 904(2), 392 S.E.2d 327 (1990); Whittington v. State, 155 Ga.App. 667(2), 272 S.E.2d 532 (1980). 11. Admissible under OCGA § 12. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 370(3), 434 S.E.2d 479 (1993). 13. Wilson v. Reed, ......
-
Pike v. State
...v. State, 223 Ga. 450(1), 156 S.E.2d 68 (1967); Sharpe v. State, 119 Ga.App. 222(1), 166 S.E.2d 645 (1969); Whittington v. State, 155 Ga.App. 667(1), 272 S.E.2d 532 (1980). However, Georgia cases dealing with such a right involve either a waiver of the right, Timmons, Sharpe, supra, or case......
-
Hines v. Good Housekeeping Shop, 62523
...have personal knowledge of the correctness of the records or have actually made the entries himself.' [Cit.]" Whittington v. State, 155 Ga.App. 667(2), 272 S.E.2d 532 (1980). 6. Appellant next asserts that the verdict and judgment are erroneous because "[t]here was no evidence showing a bon......
-
Hertz Corp. v. McCray, A90A2237
...correctness of the records or have made the entry himself. Davis v. State, 194 Ga.App. 902, 904(2), 392 S.E.2d 327; Whittington v. State, 155 Ga.App. 667(2), 272 S.E.2d 532; see Smith v. Bank of the South, 141 Ga.App. 114, 232 S.E.2d 629 (lack of personal knowledge of making of business rec......