From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webster v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 1, 1985
330 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

69665.

DECIDED APRIL 1, 1985.

Rape, etc. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Henderson.

Michael C. Clark, for appellant.

W. Bryant Huff, District Attorney, Stephen E. Franzen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


Appellant was convicted of burglary and rape. His motion for new trial was denied and he appeals. The sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant appellant's motion for new trial on the ground that the State had withheld exculpatory evidence which should have been produced in response to a Brady motion. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 ( 83 SC 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215) (1963). The information which appellant alleges was wrongfully withheld includes the victim's description of her assailant, which description was given by the victim to two police officers immediately following the attack upon her. Appellant also asserts that the State wrongfully withheld written statements given to the police by two of appellant's witnesses at trial.

In response to a defendant's general request for any exculpatory information, as was made in the instant case, the State "must disclose evidence which creates a reasonable doubt of guilt which did not otherwise exist. [Cits.]" Radford v. State, 251 Ga. 50, 52 (4) ( 302 S.E.2d 555) (1983). The test is whether the evidence was so important that the failure to disclose it prevented the accused from receiving a constitutionally guaranteed fair trial. McClesky v. State, 245 Ga. 108, 112 (4) ( 263 S.E.2d 146) (1980).

In the present case, even assuming without deciding that the evidence at issue created a reasonable doubt of appellant's guilt, we find no reversible error. "The evidence he sought to inspect was introduced to the jury in its entirety, and a favorable inference, if any, could [have been] drawn by the jury. [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) McClesky v. State, supra at 113. Appellant has not shown how the lack of this information prior to trial so impaired his defense that he was denied a fair trial. See McCullough v. State, 162 Ga. App. 866, 867 (1) ( 293 S.E.2d 455) (1982); Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396 ( 207 S.E.2d 30) (1974).

Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.


DECIDED APRIL 1, 1985.


Summaries of

Webster v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 1, 1985
330 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Webster v. State

Case Details

Full title:WEBSTER v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 1, 1985

Citations

330 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
330 S.E.2d 168

Citing Cases

Thomas v. State

Shearer v. State, 259 Ga. 51, 52 (2) ( 376 S.E.2d 194) (1989). See also Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396 (…

Davis v. State

As the evidence was made available for the jury's consideration and defendant has not shown how the lack of…