Williams v. State, A90A1679
| Decision Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1679,A90A1679 |
| Citation | 199 Ga.App. 122,404 S.E.2d 296 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Patton & Price, Charles G. Price, Rome, for appellant.
Stephen F. Lanier, Dist. Atty., Leigh E. Patterson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Bernard Williams appeals his conviction for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by possessing cocaine. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting in evidence a statement taken by the police after he asserted his right to remain silent, that the trial court erred by admitting in evidence certain physical evidence because the State failed to establish the chain of custody and also erred by denying his oral motion to suppress the evidence. He also contends the trial court erred by excusing one of the jurors and by failing to grant a mistrial after certain jurors overheard the argument of counsel on this issue. Held:
1. Williams argues that a statement he made, which in effect admitted ownership of the drug, should have been excluded because it was secured in violation of his right to remain silent. Although the transcript of the Jackson-Denno hearing shows that Williams twice asserted his right to remain silent before the statement was made, the evidence also supports, and the trial court found, that the statement was made spontaneously and voluntarily without questioning by the police sometime later.
Chastain v. State, 196 Ga.App. 50, 52, 395 S.E.2d 570.
2. Williams argues that the trial court erred by admitting the drugs in evidence because the State failed to prove the chain of custody. He makes this argument because one chemist who analyzed the drug at the GBI crime lab did not testify and thus there was no testimony about the evidence while it was in his custody. Williams, however, makes no specific allegation that the evidence was tampered with, or that the evidence seized was not that analyzed and subsequently admitted in evidence.
The transcript shows that because this chemist was attending a special class, another chemist (also employed by the GBI) received the evidence from the first chemist, analyzed the evidence, and then testified about the results of his analysis. Additionally, the police officer who assumed custody of the evidence at the scene of the search also testified about the evidence while it was in his custody and also identified the evidence which was admitted as that seized during the search. Moreover, the officer who transported the evidence to the crime lab testified and accounted for the evidence while in his custody.
Where the State seeks to introduce evidence of a fungible nature, it need only show with reasonable certainty that the evidence is the same as that seized and that there has been no tampering or substitution. The fact that one of the persons in control of a fungible substance does not testify at trial does not, without more, make the substance or testimony relating to it inadmissible. The trial court was authorized to conclude that the state had met its burden with respect to the establishment of the chain of custody in the present case. Myers v. State, 196 Ga.App. 104, 105, 395 S.E.2d 372. Langham v. State, 196 Ga.App. 71, 72, 395 S.E.2d 345.
3. Williams contends that the trial court erred by excusing from the jury the only black juror without a showing of harm to the jury process and by not granting a mistrial because some of the jurors overheard some of the argument on this issue. The evidence shows that one day after trial was adjourned, a police officer saw Williams sitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Griffin
...possession of the police, and such bare speculation is insufficient to preclude establishment of chain of custody. Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122(2), 404 S.E.2d 296. 2. Appellee argues that a key issue is whether, under the existing circumstances, he was offered a qualified person of hi......
-
Biswas v. State
...or ruling that his own procedure or conduct procured or aided in causing." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122, 124(3), 404 S.E.2d 296 (1991). Furthermore, any error committed in giving the charge was harmless. Biswas did not testify at trial; thus, there......
-
Robinson v. State
...with, or that the evidence seized was not, in fact, that analyzed and subsequently admitted in evidence. Compare Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 404 S.E.2d 296. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the cocaine in evidence. Contrary to appellant's contentions......
-
Green v. State, s. A92A1462
...that surgically removed from victim's body and that there has been no tampering or substitution thereof. See generally Williams v. State, 199 Ga.App. 122, 404 S.E.2d 296. Nor was it necessary to establish chain of custody that all persons who handled the bullet testify, particularly when, a......
-
Molly F. Jacobson-greany, Setting Aside Nonjudicial Foreclosure Sales: Extending the Rule to Cover Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fraud or Unfairness
...company need not defend or indemnify parents of son who shot someone because no person should profit from a wrong); Williams v. State, 404 S.E.2d 296, 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) ("[T]he law will not permit an individual to profit from his own wrong."); Nelson v. N. Leasing Co., 657 P.2d 482, 4......