Sinkfield v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Sinkfield v. State

    416 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 24 times

    DECIDED MAY 27, 1992. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 201 Ga. App. 284. Vigil L. Brown Associates, Virgil L. Brown, Anne C. Allen, for appellant.

  2. Adams v. State

    264 Ga. 71 (Ga. 1994)   Cited 32 times

    " [Cit.] Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284 (4) ( 411 S.E.2d 68) (1991). Insofar as appellants' argument on appeal is that they were denied their right to confront the witnesses against them, specifically the officers who took the contested statements, their argument is without merit: both officers testified and were available for cross-examination by appellants.

  3. Rollins v. State

    262 Ga. 698 (Ga. 1993)   Cited 15 times

    A party may impeach its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement without any showing of entrapment or surprise, Ranger v. State, 249 Ga. 315, 318 ( 290 S.E.2d 63) (1982); Davis v. State, 249 Ga. 309, 314 ( 290 S.E.2d 273) (1982). Accord Williams v. State, 253 Ga. 690, 693 ( 324 S.E.2d 440) (1985); Smith v. State, 253 Ga. 536 ( 322 S.E.2d 492) (1984); Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284 ( 411 S.E.2d 68) (1991). Both Napoleon Lawson and Montrese Lawson took the stand for the state and were available for cross-examination by the defense.

  4. McClendon v. State

    287 Ga. App. 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times

    The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find McClendon guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as a party to the crime, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Johnson v. State, 276 Ga. 368, 370-371 (1) ( 578 SE2d 885) (2003); Walsh v. State, 269 Ga. 427, 428-429 (1) ( 499 SE2d 332) (1998); Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284 (1) ( 411 SE2d 68) (1991), rev'd in part on other grounds, 262 Ga. 239 ( 416 SE2d 288) (1992). 2.

  5. Pullins v. State

    501 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 16 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284, 286 ( 411 S.E.2d 68) (1991). We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion here.

  6. Johnson v. State

    209 Ga. App. 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    The trial court was not compelled to direct such an examination where there has been no showing that defendant would not be able to intelligently participate at trial or that his sanity would be a significant issue at trial. Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284, 286 (3) ( 411 S.E.2d 68), rev'd on other grounds, 262 Ga. 239 ( 416 S.E.2d 288); Lightsey v. State, 188 Ga. App. 801, 802 (1), supra. This enumeration of error is without merit.

  7. Campbell v. Cozad

    427 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    Court of Appeals Rule 15 (c) (2). Appellees' counsel objected timely to the admission of the testimony on the grounds, inter alia, that the officer had not been questioned previously regarding any prior conversations with appellant's mother; this, in substance, was an objection based on lack of adequate foundation to admit a prior inconsistent statement, and constituted an adequate, albeit unartful statement, of what the proper foundation should be within the meaning of Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284 ( 411 S.E.2d 68). The record reveals appellant did not lay an adequate foundation for the admission of the conversation between the officer and appellant's mother into evidence as a prior inconsistent or contradictory statement of the officer. Thus, the testimony was not admissible on this particular ground (OCGA § 24-9-83), as a witness may not be impeached by proof of contradictory statements without first laying the requisite statutory foundation.

  8. Sinkfield v. State

    420 S.E.2d 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

    McMURRAY, Presiding Judge. The Supreme Court of Georgia in Sinkfield v. State, 262 Ga. 239 ( 416 S.E.2d 288), having reversed this Court's prior judgment in this case as to defendant's sentence, the judgment of this Court in Sinkfield v. State, 201 Ga. App. 284 ( 411 S.E.2d 68), in which this Court affirmed the trial court, is vacated in part, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed as to the sentence. This case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in compliance with OCGA § 17-10-2.