Zinn v. State
Decision Date | 07 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 50130,No. 1,50130,1 |
Citation | 134 Ga.App. 51,213 S.E.2d 156 |
Parties | Gary K. ZINN v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stephen M. Friedberg, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., H. Allen Moye, Isaac Jenrette, Joseph J. Drolet, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Gary Zinn was indicted, tried and convicted for selling heroin in violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (Code Ann. Ch. 79A-8), and he now appeals. Held:
1. In support of the general grounds of the motion for new trial, defendant contends that the state The trial court, after defining entrapment, charged the jury: The jury resolved this issue against defendant, there was ample evidence to support the finding, and the general grounds are without merit. See Criminal Code § 26-905; Hill v. State, 225 Ga. 117, 166 S.E.2d 338; Sutton v. State, 59 Ga.App. 198, 200 S.E. 225; McKibben v. State, 115 Ga.App. 598, 599(1), 155 S.E.2d 449 and cases cited; Moon v. State, 120 Ga.App. 141, 142(4), 169 S.E.2d 632; Allen v. State, 120 Ga.App. 533, 535(4), 171 S.E.2d 380; Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867(2), 189 S.E.2d 448; Brown v. State, 132 Ga.App. 399(1), 208 S.E.2d 183; Garrett v. State, 133 Ga.App. 564, 211 S.E.2d 584; Thomas v. State, 134 Ga.App. 18, 213 S.E.2d 129.
2. Defendant complains that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the undercover agent 'covering a separate and distinct transaction having no relevance to the issues then before the court.' This testimony showed that prior to procuring the drugs from another location, defendant stated to the agent: A few minutes later, another vehicle drove up and two other persons arranged with defendant for the purchase of drugs, after which defendant proceeded to another location and procured all the drugs.
We find no error. The defense was based upon defendant's contention that he was entrapped by the informer and undercover agent as to the transaction in question. The evidence as to the independent transaction with the other two persons, which was inextricably bound up with the instant transaction, showed that he was ready, willing and able to engage in these transactions, and was thus relevant to show that he was not entrapped.
3. The contention that defendant was merely a 'procuring agent' and could not be convicted for selling heroin is without merit. Code Ann. § 79A-802(10) (Ga.L.1967, pp. 296, 325; 1970, p. 470); Criminal Code § 26-801; Green v. State, 124 Ga.App. 469, 184 S.E.2d 194; Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867, 868(1), 189 S.E.2d 448, supra.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McInturff v. State
...488 F.2d 143); 10th Cir.Ct.App. (Martinez v. U.S., 373 F.2d 810); (State v. McKinney, 108 Ariz. 436, 501 P.2d 378); (Zinn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 51, 213 S.E.2d 156); (People v. Cooper, 17 Ill.App.3d 934, 308 N.E.2d 815); (Smith v. State, 258 Ind. 415, 281 N.E.2d 803); (People v. Habel, 50 Mi......
-
Loder v. State
...with the 'pusher' named Bill. This 'procuring agent' theory has been raised before and has been rejected. See e.g., Zinn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 51(3), 213 S.E.2d 156; Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867(1), 189 S.E.2d 448; Green v. State, 124 Ga.App. 469, 184 S.E.2d 194. The apparent rationale ......
-
Carr v. State, A01A0998.
...similar transaction evidence as proof of Carr's "predisposition to commit the crime." The State had proposed this instruction, citing to Zinn v. State,12 in which predisposition to commit the crime was relevant to disprove the defendant's claim of entrapment. Of course, entrapment was not a......
-
Royal v. State
...141 Ga.App. 665, 234 S.E.2d 132. "This 'procuring agent' theory has been raised before and has been rejected. See, e. g. Zinn v. State, 134 Ga.App. 51(3), 213 S.E.2d 156; Brooks v. State, 125 Ga.App. 867(1), 189 S.E.2d 448; Green v. State, 124 Ga.App. 469, 184 S.E.2d 194. The apparent ratio......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...State, 251 Ga. App. 117, 119, 553 S.E.2d 674 (2001). 22. 251 Ga. App. 117, 553 S.E.2d 674 (2001). 23. Id. at 119, 553 S.E.2d at 676. 24. 134 Ga. App. 51, 213 S.E.2d 156 (1975). 25. Id. at 51-52, 213 S.E.2d at 157. 26. 251 Ga. App. at 119, 553 S.E.2d at 676. 27. Id. 28. Id. (emphasis added) ......