Duvall v. State

16 Citing cases

  1. Grier v. State

    465 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. 1996)   Cited 17 times

    (b) Appellant also contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the M-11 firearm because it was not used in the commission of the crime. We have held that articles which are similar to ones used in crimes but are not identical are admissible. Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977). Here, a couple of witnesses, including one of the perpetrators, testified that the gun found at the apartment was similar to the one that the perpetrator was carrying on the night of the murder.

  2. Gunn v. State

    264 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 14 times
    Noting discretion of trial court with respect to such matters

    In view of the fact that defendant admits using a very similar stick, we find no error in the introduction of the substitute. Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977); Davis v. State, 230 Ga. 902 (5) ( 199 S.E.2d 779) (1973); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 ( 92 S.C. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706) (1972). 5. During direct examination of Shirley, the district attorney asked "[A]s far as you and Mr. Gunn are concerned had there been any animosity between you and him either one of you in the past before this incident?

  3. Curtis v. State

    243 Ga. 50 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    5. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a knife offered by the state. Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325, 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977); Jung v. State, 237 Ga. 73, 74-75 ( 226 S.E.2d 599) (1975); Evans v. State, 228 Ga. 867, 870 ( 188 S.E.2d 861) (1972). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

  4. Tew v. State

    539 S.E.2d 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to evidence derived from marijuana used in a reverse drug sale that was illegal because a statute required the police to destroy or send away forfeited dangerous contraband, where the statute did not include a suppression remedy and was not “enacted to protect a defendant's constitutional rights.”

    Where, as here, a weapon is identified at trial as similar to the one used to commit the crime, the weapon is admissible, whether or not it is the identical weapon. Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325, 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977). Paxton v. State, 160 Ga. App. 19 ( 285 S.E.2d 741) (1981), relied on by Tew, is not to the contrary.

  5. Rivers v. State

    484 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming defendant's conviction for theft by receiving where he had also been charged with, but not convicted of, theft by taking of the same property

    The case of Stiles v. State, 216 Ga. App. 308, 309 (2) ( 454 S.E.2d 189) (1995), authorized the admission of a weapon as a demonstrative aid for the jury. See Boyd v. State, 264 Ga. 490, 491 (2) ( 448 S.E.2d 210) (1994); Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325, 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977). Further, there was no dispute that a similar weapon was used during the robbery.

  6. Stiles v. State

    454 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    [Cits.]" Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325, 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977). This court has held it must be "undisputed" that a similar weapon was used.

  7. Ingram v. State

    211 Ga. App. 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    "Georgia's case law is replete with holdings that articles which are similar to ones used in a crime but are not identical are nevertheless admissible. See, e.g., Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325 ( 232 S.E.2d 918); Jung v. State, 237 Ga. 73 ( 226 S.E.2d 599); Davis v. State, 230 Ga. 902 ( 199 S.E.2d 799); Kent v. State, 157 Ga. App. 209 ( 276 S.E.2d 881); Gunn v. State, 245 Ga. 359 ( 264 S.E.2d 862); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (92 SC 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706)." Paxton v. State, 160 Ga. App. 19, 22 (6), 23 ( 285 S.E.2d 741).

  8. Williams v. State

    411 S.E.2d 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that rule announcing forbidden jury charge would not go into effect until case announcing rule appeared in advance sheets

    Compare Paxton v. State, 160 Ga. App. 19, 22 (6), supra, with Gunn v. State, 245 Ga. 359, 362 (4) ( 264 S.E.2d 862). See also Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325 ( 232 S.E.2d 918). Judgment affirmed. Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

  9. Rich v. State

    381 S.E.2d 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    These exhibits were admissible regardless of whether or not they were identical to the items stolen. Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325 ( 232 S.E.2d 918). Judgments affirmed. Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

  10. Jones v. State

    190 Ga. App. 416 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 16 times
    In Jones, this court recognized the long-standing principle that "`articles which are similar to ones used in a crime but are not identical are nevertheless admissible.' [Cits.

    As recognized in Paxton v. State, 160 Ga. App. 19, 23 (6) ( 285 S.E.2d 741) (1981): "Georgia's case law is replete with holdings that articles which are similar to ones used in a crime but are not identical are nevertheless admissible." See, e.g., Evans v. State, 228 Ga. 867, 870 (4) ( 188 S.E.2d 861) (1972); Davis v. State, 230 Ga. 902 (5) ( 199 S.E.2d 779) (1973); Jung v. State, 237 Ga. 73, 74 (1) ( 226 S.E.2d 599) (1976); Duvall v. State, 238 Ga. 325, 326 ( 232 S.E.2d 918) (1977); Gunn v. State, 245 Ga. 359, 362 (4) ( 264 S.E.2d 862) (1980). However, that case then held that the weapon in question must be one in possession of or belonging to the accused and that the State could not introduce a gun which merely resembled the description given by the victim.