lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
BELL v. THE STATE.
29709.
HALL, Justice.
Armed robbery. Clayton Superior Court. Before Judge Banke.
Bell appeals from his conviction and life sentence for the July 5, 1972 armed robbery of Joyce Berry, an attendant in a convenience store on Riverdale Road in Clayton County, Georgia. The robber escaped with $812.12. Approximately an hour later, Bell was apprehended by police in the course of robbing another convenience store, this one on Allison Court in Atlanta, Georgia. Bell was apprehended before obtaining any money from the Allison Court robbery, but his automobile was found to contain a large amount of cash. Subsequently, the Riverdale Road victims positively identified Bell as the robber in the first incident.
At Bell's trial for the Riverdale Road robbery many of the state's witnesses and exhibits referred to the Allison Court episode over Bell's objections. On this appeal he raises 48 enumerations of error.
638 (212 SE2d 814); Irving v. State, 233 Ga. 353 (211 SE2d 309); Hunt v. State, 233 Ga. 329 (211 SE2d 288); Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294 (210 SE2d 775).
2. Enumerations 24 and 25 relate to the in-court identification of the appellant. There are no facts showing that the identification of the appellant was impermissively suggestive and the testimony supports a finding that the challenged photograph did not form the basis for the in-court identification. See Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294, supra, pp. 297-302. The enumerations are without merit.
3. Enumerations 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 relate to the sequestration of witnesses. The appellant contends the rule was violated for the reason that a key state's witness was not in the witness room but was instead in the district attorney's office which was equipped with an operational courtroom monitoring system which conveyed testimony of the trial to certain rooms in the district attorney's office. The testimony shows that while the witness and her daughter were in the reception area of that office, she did not hear anything on the monitoring system nor was there any discussion of the case by anyone in her presence. The enumerations are without merit.
4. Enumeration 43 relates to the charge on alibi and is without merit. The charge was in substance the same as that approved in Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294, supra, pp. 314-316.
5. Having reviewed the record and transcript with respect to all other enumerations (1-4, 8, 11, 12, 14-23, 29, 34-42 and 44-48) we find them without merit. There being no reversible error, the judgment wilt be affirmed.
Weiner & Bazemore, Paul S. Weiner, for appellant.
ARGUED MARCH 11, 1975 -- DECIDED MAY 6, 1975 -- REHEARING DENIED MAY 27, 1975.
Friday May 22 11:20 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com