Woods v. State
| Decision Date | 20 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1045,A93A1045 |
| Citation | 435 S.E.2d 464,210 Ga.App. 172 |
| Parties | WOODS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
O. Dale Jenkins, Atlanta, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, Dist. Atty., J. Thomas Durden, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Woods appeals from his conviction by a jury for selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. OCGA § 16-13-30(b). He was positively identified at trial by the undercover police officer to whom he sold the cocaine, and a video and audio tape of Woods selling the cocaine to the officer was played to the jury.
1. Woods claims the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the undercover police officer. The officer who made the drug purchase from Woods subsequently resigned from the police force because of allegations that he may have used illegal drugs. He was not charged with any crime, and the alleged drug use was not connected to the drug sale at issue. Defense counsel sought to question the former officer regarding the circumstances of his resignation to attack his general credibility as a witness. In granting the State's motion in limine, the trial court ruled that defense counsel could not inquire into allegations that the former officer had used illegal drugs.
The defense was not entitled to challenge the former officer's credibility by questioning him about allegations of illegal drug use unrelated to this case to raise an inference that he was not worthy of belief. "Instances of specific misconduct may not be used to impeach a witness' character or veracity unless the misconduct has resulted in the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and the proper method of proving such a conviction is by the introduction of a certified copy thereof." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hall v. State, 180 Ga.App. 881, 884, 350 S.E.2d 801 (1986); Brooks v. State, 182 Ga.App. 144, 146, 355 S.E.2d 435 (1987). Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga.App. 58, 59, 416 S.E.2d 111 (1992).
Woods also argues on appeal that he should have been allowed to cross-examine the former officer to discover if he was biased by any possible deal which might have existed to protect him from prosecution for drug use in return for his favorable testimony in the case. In the trial court, defense counsel argued only that the cross-examination should be allowed to attack the witness' veracity and credibility--no argument was made, and no ruling was entered by the trial court, with regard to allowing the defense to question the witness about any bias resulting from a secret deal. Accordingly, we find no error. Haynes v. State, 199 Ga.App. 288, 291, 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991).
2. Woods argues the trial court erred by admitting the video tape of the drug sale taken with a hidden camera. The hidden camera was equipped with a "right angle lens," a periscope-like device which uses a mirror to reflect the images of objects within the view of the lens. The camera video tapes the virtual images reflected in the mirror, rather than the actual objects before the lens. Accordingly, the video tape records reverse mirror images of the actual events.
Because the video tape showed reverse mirror images of the drug transaction, Woods claims it did not accurately depict the events, and the trial court should have granted his motion to exclude this evidence. Other than showing mirror images, Woods does not claim the video tape does not accurately depict the actual events. He does not point to any portion of the video tape in which the reverse mirror image caused a material variation from the actual events tending to mislead the jury. See Cleveland v. State, 204 Ga.App. 101, 103, 418 S.E.2d 430 (1992) (); Cheeks v. State, 203 Ga.App. 47, 50, 416 S.E.2d 336 (1992) (). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cromartie v. State
...the shot, the assailant's attempt to open the cash register, and the arrival of law enforcement. OCGA § 24-4-48; Woods v. State, 210 Ga.App. 172, 174(2), 435 S.E.2d 464 (1993) (admissibility of videotape addresses itself to the discretion of the trial Nor did the trial court err in denying ......
-
Mika v. State
...allegations of misconduct unrelated to this case and having no logical connection with the witness' testimony. Woods v. State, 210 Ga.App. 172, 173, 435 S.E.2d 464 (1993). Specific misconduct cannot be used to impeach a witness' character or veracity unless the misconduct results in a crimi......
-
Smith v. State
...impeach a witness's character or credibility, unless the misconduct has resulted in conviction of such a crime. Woods v. State, 210 Ga.App. 172, 173(1), 435 S.E.2d 464 (1993). "[A] mere indictment or a charge or an arrest or a trial and acquittal ... are not legal methods of impeachment." (......
-
Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones
...v. McCord, 202 Ga.App. 365, 368(5), 414 S.E.2d 508; Adams v. Southern R. Co., 180 Ga.App. 578, 349 S.E.2d 809. See Woods v. State, 210 Ga.App. 172, 173(2), 174, 435 S.E.2d 464. In light of the circumstances of the video taped demonstration in the case sub judice, as well as Norfolk Southern......