Leatherwood v. State

24 Citing cases

  1. Murphy v. State

    233 Ga. App. 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court correctly admitted this evidence over defendant's objection that no warnings as prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 ( 86 SC 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) preceded his volunteered statement. Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 343 (2) ( 441 S.E.2d 813). See also Jenkins v. State, 219 Ga. App. 339, 340 (1) ( 465 S.E.2d 296).

  2. Tucker v. State

    231 Ga. App. 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    Since Detective Hill's denial of any initial promise of leniency is corroborated by the transcript of defendant's custodial interview, the trial court's pre-trial determination of voluntariness "is supported by evidence, is not clearly erroneous, and will not be disturbed on appeal. Wilson v. State, 211 Ga. App. 457 (1)[, supra]." Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 343 (2) ( 441 S.E.2d 813). (b) But the trial court's subsequent reasoning that it could not reconsider its previous ruling, in response to a renewed challenge to voluntariness based on additional evidence, is erroneous. "The denial of a pre-trial suppression motion, an interlocutory evidentiary ruling, is subject to review by the presiding judge ex mero motu. [Cit.] `The trial court may, within its sound discretion, consider anew a suppression motion previously denied.

  3. Cent. Ga. Women's Health Ctr., LLC v. Dean

    342 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a specific instance of conduct pursuant to Rule 608 (b) when the act was probative of untruthfulness

    However, in their appellate briefing, the Davis Defendants have not challenged the use of this extrinsic evidence at trial and thus have abandoned any argument in that regard. See Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 345 (5) (441 SE2d 813) (1994) (evidentiary issues not argued on appeal “are deemed abandoned”).

  4. Forum Group at Moran Lake Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Terhune

    733 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    ” (Citations omitted.) Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga.App. 342(1)(a), 441 S.E.2d 813 (1994). “As the appellant, [Houser] had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record.”

  5. Durrence v. State

    706 S.E.2d 180 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 343 (3) ( 441 SE2d 813) (1994). See Warner v. State, 281 Ga. 763, 766 (3) ( 642 SE2d 821) (2007) (state may attempt to impeach its own witness).

  6. Bowden v. State

    304 Ga. App. 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Refusing to consider State's argument that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that he had standing to object to search where argument was not raised in the trial court

    Likewise, the state waived any argument that the officer's entry was justified by exigent circumstances. See Folsom, 286 Ga. at 110 (3); Harper, 285 Ga. App. at 266 (2); Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 344-345 (5) ( 441 SE2d 813) (1994); Goins, 184 Ga. App. at 454. Not only was this argument not made in the trial court, but the record contains no evidence of exigent circumstances that would have otherwise justified the officer's warrantless entry into the housing unit.

  7. Adams v. State

    300 Ga. App. 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming conviction for criminal damage to property where the evidence showed that the defendant has access to the property at issue during the time it was damaged

    See Watts, 274 Ga. at 375 (2); Davis, 266 Ga. at 213. See Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 342-343 (1) (b) ( 441 SE2d 813) (1994).Davis, 266 Ga. at 213.

  8. Grooms v. State

    583 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    In Grooms, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him, claiming that the only witness to the crime was an "impressionable eleven-year-old child" who was unreliable because she had difficulty recalling the date of the incident.

    Such a tactical decision is virtually unassailable on appeal. We note that the tape was not made part of the record on appeal. See Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342 ( 441 S.E.2d 813) (1994) ("`This court cannot consider the factual assertions of the parties appearing in briefs where such evidence does not appear on the record.'").Bagwell v. State, 270 Ga. 175, 179(1)(e) ( 508 S.E.2d 385) (1998) (attorney's "election to allow the tape was a mater of tactics and strategy, and whether ultimately `wise or unwise' did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.").

  9. Garland v. State

    568 S.E.2d 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Smith v. State, 192 Ga. App. 768, 771 (2) ( 386 S.E.2d 530) (1989). See also Copeland v. State, 248 Ga. App. 346, 348 (1) ( 546 S.E.2d 351) (2001); Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 342-343 (1) (b) ( 441 S.E.2d 813) (1994).Judgment affirmed.

  10. Mobley v. State

    564 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    We note that the chain of custody requirement does not apply to distinct and recognizable physical objects that can be identified upon observation, such as videotapes. Gadson v. State, 263 Ga. 626, 627 (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 313) (1993). See Leatherwood v. State, 212 Ga. App. 342, 344 (5) ( 441 S.E.2d 813) (1994). Second, even if the issue was preserved, the Berky decision would not require a reversal in this case.