Clark v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Ladson v. State

    248 Ga. 470 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 61 times
    In Ladson v. State, 248 Ga. 470, 476-477 (9) (285 S.E.2d 508), the Supreme Court has called attention to the difference between the "plain error" rule of the federal courts (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) and our rules with reference to testimony by an accomplice in that all that the Georgia law requires is a charge on the weight and credibility to be given to the testimony of any witnesses and that a defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

    Given the conflicts in the defendant's and Starling's testimony, it is not illogical to draw the deduction that one of them was not telling the truth. See also, Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial.

  2. Jaffray v. State

    306 Ga. App. 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 14 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 SE2d 221) (1978). See Steverson v. State, 276 Ga. App. 876, 882 (5) (b) ( 625 SE2d 476) (2005).

  3. Brown v. State

    531 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    The challenged statement was an inference from evidence presented during the trial, and there was no error. Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697(3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978) (citation and punctuation omitted). 7. Brown contends that the trial court erred by not merging Count 1 (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Victim-1) and Count 2 (aggravated assault with the intent to rape upon Victim-1).

  4. Billups v. State

    234 Ga. App. 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted). Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 698 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978) see also Garcia v. State, 267 Ga. 257 (8) ( 477 S.E.2d 112) (1996). When improper comments are made which are not in evidence, "it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same.

  5. Cheesman v. State

    230 Ga. App. 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 14 times

    The comments in this case were not impermissible. "`The prosecution is permitted to draw deductions from the evidence and these deductions may be illogical, unreasonable or even absurd so long as there is evidence from which such deductions can be made.' [Cit.]" Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978); see also Garcia v. State, 267 Ga. 257 259 (8) ( 477 S.E.2d 112) (1996). Agent Cannon's testimony, along with the video and audiotapes, provided sufficient evidence of Cheesman's demeanor, actions and conversation with Agent Cannon from which the State could conclude and argue that Cheesman was not inexperienced in such transactions.

  6. Veal v. State

    494 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)

    It is well established that during closing argument, even remote, illogical or unreasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence provide no basis for objection. See id. Because the comments at issue were permissible, the rebuke and the additional time given the defense for argument were not required. Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697, 698 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978).

  7. Geoffrion v. State

    224 Ga. App. 775 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). The comments about defense counsel, however, involved neither evidence nor deductions or conclusions therefrom.

  8. James v. State

    420 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    Appellant's post-arrest statement was properly in evidence and thus was a suitable subject for closing argument. As appellant concedes, a prosecutor may argue deductions which are illogical, absurd or even unreasonable, so long as there is evidence from which such deductions may be drawn. Abner v. State, 139 Ga. App. 600, 602 (3) ( 229 S.E.2d 83) (1976); Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). "[I]t is permissible for counsel to draw deductions from the evidence regardless of how illogical and unreasonable, and this is a `matter for reply by adverse counsel, not for rebuke by the court.' [Cit.

  9. Hall v. State

    196 Ga. App. 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 43 times
    Discussing admissibility and use of evidence regarding CSAAS by State at trial

    Accordingly, since there was evidence from which the prosecutor could conclude that the remarks had been made by the victim's relatives, we find no error in the trial court's failure to rebuke the prosecutor or instruct the jury to disregard these remarks. See generally Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). 8. While the record does not indicate the prosecutor compared appellant to certain notorious criminals, as he contends, the transcript does show that the names of well known criminals were mentioned by the prosecutor in her closing argument to illustrate by example her point that looks may be deceptive, and one may not judge the guilt or innocence of one accused of serious crime by his outward physical appearance.

  10. Blount v. State

    181 Ga. App. 330 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction of defendant who was present at the time a search warrant was executed because nothing connected him to the drugs in the house or in his wife's car; the fact that men's clothing was in his wife's trunk where the drugs were located did not connect the defendant because there was no evidence regarding to whom the clothes belonged

    His mere presence in the Hayneses' house cannot be said to demonstrate possession of the contraband found in his wife's automobile. Mitchell v. State, 150 Ga. App. 44, 46 (2) ( 256 S.E.2d 652). Compare Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (1) ( 247 S.E.2d 221). Likewise, the fact that defendants were husband and wife cannot be said to establish defendant husband's connection to the contraband. See Knighton v. State, 248 Ga. 199, 200 (2) ( 282 S.E.2d 102). That men's clothing was found in the trunk of defendant wife's automobile does not establish possession either.