From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1990
395 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

A90A0784.

DECIDED JUNE 22, 1990.

Drug violation. Baldwin Superior Court. Before Judge Prior.

Waddell, Emerson, George Buice, E. Angela Emerson, for appellant.

Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Albert C. Martinez, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


The appellant was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. He brings this appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial. Held:

1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting an undercover agent to testify that he had "made purchases" at the appellant's residence on several prior occasions, as this testimony impermissibly placed his character into evidence. We disagree. The appellant took the position at trial that the agent had him confused with someone else, and similar transaction evidence is admissible under such circumstances to prove identity. See State v. Johnson, 246 Ga. 654 (1) ( 272 S.E.2d 321) (1980).

2. Asked by his attorney on direct examination whether he knew of anyone else who might have sold cocaine at his residence, the appellant responded in the negative. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in thereafter allowing the state's attorney to cross-examine him concerning the fact that his father was at that time serving a prison sentence for selling cocaine from the same location. As the testimony in question was received without objection, this contention presents nothing for review. See generally Shy v. State, 190 Ga. App. 370 ( 378 S.E.2d 920) (1989).

3. Generally speaking, "it is not harmful error to give a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence even if none is actually present in the case, inasmuch as such an instruction would `"g(i)ve (the defendant) a rule more favorable than he could claim."' [Cits.]" Barnes v. State, 171 Ga. App. 478 (4) ( 320 S.E.2d 597) (1984).

4. The evidence was amply sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).

Judgment affirmed. Birdsong and Cooper, JJ., concur.


DECIDED JUNE 22, 1990.


Summaries of

Sanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1990
395 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Sanford v. State

Case Details

Full title:SANFORD v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 22, 1990

Citations

395 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)
395 S.E.2d 373

Citing Cases

Hunter v. State

Likewise, the trial court was authorized to find that the relevance of appellant's prior conviction on the…

Mullen v. State

Moreover, it is not generally considered reversible error to charge on circumstantial evidence where none is…