From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 3, 1991
413 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

A91A2205.

DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1991.

Public indecency. Gwinnett State Court. Before Judge Hoffman.

Harrison Harrison, G. Hughel Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison, for appellant.

Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, for appellee.


Via accusation, defendant was charged with three counts of public indecency. He was convicted and sentenced upon two of the counts. This appeal follows the denial of his motion for a new trial. Held:

1. On direct examination, a witness was asked why he waited 30 minutes after confronting defendant to call the police. Over defendant's objection, the witness was permitted to testify that after speaking with defendant for approximately ten minutes he decided not to call the police because he "felt sorry for the guy ... [but he changed his mind when he] found out there'd been a similar incidence in the apartment complex earlier at the mailboxes...."

Defendant contends it was harmful error to permit the witness to introduce highly prejudicial evidence of a "similar transaction." We disagree. Defendant was not identified as the perpetrator of the other act. Thus, the statement did not suggest that defendant committed a similar act and it cannot be said to be prejudicial to defendant. See Lashley v. State, 196 Ga. App. 672, 673 (1) ( 396 S.E.2d 590).

2. The trial court did not improperly restrict cross-examination of the State's witnesses.

3. The charge on circumstantial evidence was not given erroneously.

4. The mere fact that defendant's lewd act was witnessed by two persons does not mean that two crimes were committed. Defendant committed one lewd act witnessed by two persons. "The two [persons] are not the victims of [defendant's] ... crime, but are merely the witnesses through whom the State [was able] to prove [defendant's] guilt of an affront to public decency." State v. Chrisopoulos, 198 Ga. App. 876, 877 ( 403 S.E.2d 460). It follows the judgment must be affirmed and the case remanded with direction that the trial court resentence defendant upon only one count of the accusation.

Judgment affirmed and case remanded with direction. Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1991.


Summaries of

Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 3, 1991
413 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Hawkins v. State

Case Details

Full title:HAWKINS v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Dec 3, 1991

Citations

413 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
413 S.E.2d 525

Citing Cases

Turner v. State

In fact, Turner thanked the court and the prosecutor for "working with us on this case." More than six years…

Randall v. State

In short, the testimony did not establish a similar transaction. See Hawkins v. State, 202 Ga. App. 163 ( 413…