Davis v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Phillips v. Stynchcombe

    231 Ga. 430 (Ga. 1973)   Cited 26 times
    In Phillips, supra, it was held: "The holding of a commitment hearing is not a requisite to a trial for commission of a felony... We know that cross examination of the state's witnesses at a commitment hearing often results in an accused obtaining valuable information for trial of the case.

    The other two petitions (Nos. 1473 and 1479) challenged the appellant's confinement in the Fulton County jail under the authority of the 1971 armed robbery and kidnapping convictions and sentences. These convictions were affirmed by this court in Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 ( 192 S.E.2d 253). The allegations in Nos. 1473 and 1479 were in essence that the appellant's present confinement was illegal because he was denied due process in the following particulars: (1) he was denied a commitment hearing prior to his trial; (2) he was not notified of the charges against him prior to trial; (3) he was not notified of the witnesses to be used against him and was not allowed to record their testimony prior to trial; (4) he had ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) the prosecution submitted to the jury in aggravation of sentence a prior conviction for robbery although it knew that this conviction had been reversed by a United States District Court. Upon the habeas corpus hearing the petitioner further alleged (6) that a robbery conviction arising in Florida and also used in aggravation of punishment at the sentencing phase of the trial was reversed by a United States District Court in Florida; and (7) while the prosecution attempted to show that he had been

  2. Cowan v. State

    203 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    2. Nor were the copies of the documents inadmissible on the ground that the information represented by the entries on the documents, was conveyed to the Department of Public Safety by other governmental bodies, with no showing that the information was complete, true, accurate and up to date, and no certification by the officials within the originating governmental units. "Our statute (Code Ann. § 27-2534) provides that at the [pre-]sentence hearing the jury shall hear additional evidence `including the record of any prior criminal convictions.' This language does not mean that the `record' must be that of the convicting court; ..." Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509, 511 ( 192 S.E.2d 253). 3. Code Ann. § 27-2534 (Ga. L. 1970, pp. 949, 950; 1971, p. 902) provides that in the pre-sentence hearing, " subject to the laws of evidence, the jury shall hear additional evidence in extenuation, mitigation, and aggravation of punishment, including the record of any prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty or pleas of nolo contendere of the defendant, or the absence of any such prior criminal convictions and pleas ..."

  3. Corn v. Hopper

    257 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Appellant was given notice that the state intended to use evidence of his previous convictions against him during the sentencing hearing. It was not error to allow the testimony. Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 (2) ( 192 S.E.2d 253) (1972). 3. Appellant complains that his conviction and sentence are illegal and unconstitutional because they were the product of a jury from which a juror was excluded for equivocal reservation to the death penalty.

  4. Coker v. State

    234 Ga. 555 (Ga. 1975)   Cited 50 times
    In Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 570 (216 S.E.2d 782) (1975), revd. in part, 433 U.S. ___ (97 S.C. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982) (1977), the court gave more extensive, and far clearer instructions to the jury.

    The testimony of Warden Brown and Investigator Hull identifying the accused as the same person referred to in the records of prior convictions was admissible under Code Ann. § 27-2503. Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 ( 192 S.E.2d 253) (concerning Code Ann. § 27-2534, a prior identical provision). We find no error in admission of the evidence in aggravation, which materially affected the rights of appellant, and any specified error that occurred was corrected by timely instructions from the trial judge.

  5. Shepherd v. State

    214 S.E.2d 535 (Ga. 1975)   Cited 27 times

    In instructing the jury as to the bifurcated trial the court below was acting in accordance with the holding of the Court of Appeals in McRoy v. State, 131 Ga. App. 307 (8) ( 205 S.E.2d 445), where it was said that the trial court should explain the bifurcated trial proceedings to the jury "in its entirety." Compare Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 (1) ( 192 S.E.2d 253). We do not agree that the charge given had the effect of placing the burden of proof upon the appellant or was reversible error as to him.

  6. Niehaus v. State

    254 S.E.2d 895 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    Furthermore, there is no requirement at a pre-sentencing hearing that prior convictions be proven by the actual records of the convicting court. Properly authenticated administrative records have also been held admissible. See Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 (4) ( 192 S.E.2d 253) (1972); Cowan v. State, 130 Ga. App. 320 (2) ( 203 S.E.2d 311) (1973). Under Code Ann. § 68B-215 (e), the Department of Public Safety's traffic records, when properly certified, are "admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding as proof of the contents thereof."

  7. Hewell v. State

    139 Ga. App. 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    Defense counsel was the same in each trial. Defendant was thus aware that the state intended to use evidence of prior convictions and had been informed that if convicted same would be introduced in the pre-sentence hearing. Davis v. State, 229 Ga. 509 (2) ( 192 S.E.2d 253). Gates v. State, 229 Ga. 796 (4) ( 194 S.E.2d 412) is not applicable to the case sub judice.