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.
§

Spivey v. State

170 Ga. App. 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Spivey v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    270 Ga. 68 (Ga. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    In Smith v. State, 270 Ga. 68, 70(3) (508 S.E.2d 145) (1998) and State v. Hinson, 269 Ga. 862 (506 S.E.2d 870) (1998) we reiterated that "` [r]egardless of when the defendant wishes the jury instructed on the limited admissibility of similar transaction evidence, it is incumbent upon him to make a timely request to the trial court for such a charge.

    [Cit.]" Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). Where there is only enough material to perform one test, an independent test is impossible and, thus, admission of the test results does not violate the defendant's due process rights.

  2. Sanders v. State

    487 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    See id. Furthermore, the fact that the evidence was destroyed between the time of the testing and the offer of the test results in evidence did not render those results inadmissible. Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). The trial court did not err in admitting the results.

  3. Fowler v. State

    347 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    [Cit.]" Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 198 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). The chain of custody was satisfactorily established in this case.

  4. Boyer v. State

    343 S.E.2d 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    In Williams v. State, 153 Ga. App. 421, 422 (3) ( 265 S.E.2d 341) (1980), the person in the crime lab to whom the vial of drugs was turned over did not testify and the witness could not relate when or by whom the vial was brought to the lab. Even so, the state was not required to show the substance was guarded every minute and, in the absence of evidence of tampering, the chain was not broken. Accord Strong v. State, 161 Ga. App. 123 (1) ( 291 S.E.2d 33) (1982); Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). What is required is reasonable certainty that the evidence offered at trial is the same as that which was seized and has not been tampered with or substituted for. Strong, supra at p. 124 (1).

  5. Cauthen v. State

    177 Ga. App. 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    As there was only wild speculation of tampering with the powder which was unsupported by the evidence, the exhibit was properly admitted. Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984); Graham v. State, 152 Ga. App. 233 ( 262 S.E.2d 465) (1979). 7.