Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Gray v. State

260 Ga. App. 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Gray v. State

16 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. State

    748 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that three acts of forgery were sufficiently similar when, in each case, defendant participated with others in attempts to cash fraudulent payroll checks at small convenience stores, the checks were for similar amounts, and the checks were all purportedly drawn from the same account

    (Footnote omitted.) Gray v. State, 260 Ga.App. 197, 198(2)(a), 581 S.E.2d 279 (2003). In this case, Thompson's defense was that he was not involved in the forgeries and that the only evidence implicating him to the fraudulent checks was the presumably biased testimony of McDowell and Russell.

  2. State v. Carter

    299 Ga. App. 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Holding defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in the registered hotel guests room since he was merely an invitee or social guest and did not have dominion or control over the rooms

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 201 (4) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003). As we have held:

  3. Driggers v. State

    295 Ga. App. 711 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that even though witness, who was not called to testify at trial, offered potentially exculpatory testimony at the motion-for-new-trial hearing, and the defendant's testimony conflicted with counsel's over whether counsel had been given the witness's name, trial court was entitled to believe counsel and to find no ineffectiveness

    These combined facts supported a finding of abandonment. See, e.g., Thomas, 274 Ga. at 159 (3) (abandonment properly found where defendants had left the premises and had been ordered to vacate by their landlord); Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (4) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003) (defendant abandoned contents of bag seized from residence, where defendant left the residence after being informed that he was no longer welcome there and never retrieved the bag he had left behind); Oliver v. State, 161 Ga. App. 567, 568 (1) (b) ( 287 SE2d 698) (1982) (testimony of landlady that defendant had abandoned the premises indicated that defendant no longer had expectation of privacy in the premises at the time of the search). Accordingly, the trial court was entitled to find that Driggers had no expectation of privacy in the outbuilding and its contents by the time of the investigator's search, and, therefore, lacked standing to complain of the search or any evidence seized as a result.

  4. Clark v. State

    289 Ga. App. 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    As such, appellants were principals in the theft of those items. See Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003) (presence in an area that had been burglarized in conjunction with possession of goods that had been stolen from that area supports a finding of theft by taking); Dunn v. State, 245 Ga. App. 847, 847-848 ( 539 SE2d 198) (2000) (an accomplice in a burglary is guilty as a principal). Yet, one cannot be a principal thief of stolen property and at the same time be convicted of theft by receiving the same property.

  5. Mattox v. State

    651 S.E.2d 192 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    Further, when similar transaction evidence is being introduced to prove motive, intent, or bent of mind, it requires a lesser degree of similarity to meet the test of admissibility than when such evidence is being introduced to prove identity.Woods v. State, 275 Ga. App. 340, 343 (1) (a) ( 620 SE2d 609) (2005) (punctuation and footnotes omitted); see Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 198-199 (2) (a) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003). "Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial court's determination that similar transaction evidence is admissible."

  6. Walker v. State

    631 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)

    The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury's finding that Walker was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of burglary. See Cothran v. State, 269 Ga. App. 256, 257 (1) ( 603 SE2d 762) (2004); Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003). (Citations and punctuation omitted.)

  7. Davis v. State

    275 Ga. App. 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 61 times
    Affirming burglary convictions based upon evidence that defendant pawned the stolen items within several hours of the burglaries as well as evidence of similar transactions

    Citing no authority for his argument, Davis asserts that the jury was left with the prejudicial impression that "he has gotten away with it before." Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 198-199 (2) (a) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003). Davis's argument fails for two reasons.

  8. Drake v. State

    274 Ga. App. 882 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 13 times

    Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649, 653 (3) ( 250 SE2d 394) (1978).Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 199 (2) (a) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003). 3. Drake next contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel did not move for a directed verdict, did not call an essential witness, and did not object to the similar transaction testimony.

  9. Jefferson v. State

    273 Ga. App. 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Denying insufficient evidence claim where defendant possessed and pawned stolen property within hours of the theft

    Henderson v. State, 170 Ga. App. 170 ( 316 SE2d 814) (1984).Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003).Slater v. State, 209 Ga. App. 723, 724 (1) ( 434 SE2d 547) (1993).

  10. State v. Gay

    269 Ga. App. 331 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    No evidence shows, however, that Gay relinquished or abdicated control and ownership of his backpack. Compare Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197, 201 (4) ( 581 SE2d 279) (2003) (homeowner consented to search after defendant had been told that he was no longer welcome there and after defendant had left without taking his bag). Unlike the situation in Gray, Gay had not abandoned his property by leaving it in a home where he was unwelcome.