Stephens v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Sutton v. State

    263 Ga. App. 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Finding no error where trial court erroneously told defendant that the range of punishment for armed robbery was "10-20 years in prison or life," when in fact, the trial court was required to, and ultimately did, sentence defendant as a recidivist to the maximum life in prison

    See Betterson, supra at 813. See Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267, 268(1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984). 3.

  2. Redding v. State

    521 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 12 times

    The decision to sever was within the trial court's discretion and we will not disturb that ruling absent a showing of clear abuse of that discretion. OCGA ยง 17-8-4; Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267(1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847). Although defendant Redding was not available for cross-examination at trial, this alone does not demand a finding that the denial of defendant Gay's motion to sever was an abuse of discretion. A defendant seeking severance on such grounds must at least show a bona fide need for a co-defendant's testimony.

  3. Shelley v. State

    239 Ga. App. 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    The decision of whether to sever was within the trial court's discretion and we will not disturb that ruling absent a showing of clear abuse of that discretion. OCGA ยง 17-8-4; Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267(1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847). Although eyewitness Latoya Brown questioned the reliability of her own identification testimony โ€” that defendant Courtney G. Shelley was a gunman at the DeKalb County "Waffle House" armed robbery โ€” based on her view that the defendants "look a lot alike," this uncertainty does not demand a finding that the denial of a motion to sever was an abuse of discretion.

  4. Majors v. State

    203 Ga. App. 139 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming denial of severance where appellant failed to show actual prejudice or denial of due process

    " (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Sims v. State, 186 Ga. App. 74 (4) ( 366 S.E.2d 406) (1988); see also Sims v. State, 195 Ga. App. 631 ( 394 S.E.2d 422) (1990); Martin v. State, 189 Ga. App. 483, 487-488 (3) ( 376 S.E.2d 888) (1988); Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267 (1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984); see Cain v. State, 235 Ga. 128 ( 218 S.E.2d 856) (1975). Majors has failed to articulate any specific reason for severance, he has failed to show any actual prejudice or denial of due process which resulted from the failure to sever, and we find no error in the trial court's denial of the motion to sever.

  5. Scroggins v. State

    198 Ga. App. 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming conviction for aggravated assault with intent to murder and affray, despite expert testimony showing no documented cases of HIV being transmitted through saliva and that there was at best only a "theoretical possibility" HIV could be transmitted via saliva, when HIV-infected appellant bit an officer

    The record shows there were no antagonistic defenses among the issues, and appellants have asserted none; the number of defendants did not create confusion as to the evidence and law applicable to each defendant; and no evidence prejudicial to the misdemeanor defendants was admitted against Greg Scroggins. See Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267, 268 ( 316 S.E.2d 847), as to the standards and the trial court's discretion for granting motions to sever trial. We reject the assertion that the AIDS issue relevant to appellant Greg Scroggins operated to the prejudice of the remaining defendants.

  6. Sims v. State

    366 S.E.2d 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    " Stevens v. State, 165 Ga. App. 814, 816-817 (3) ( 302 S.E.2d 724) (1983). See also Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267 (1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984). Judgment affirmed. Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

  7. Boston v. State

    365 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    [Cits.]" Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267, 268 (3) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984). Thus, the trial court did not err by denying appellant the right to make the closing argument.

  8. Johnson v. State

    336 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 6 times
    In Johnson v. State, 176 Ga. App. 378, 380 (4) (336 S.E.2d 257) (1985), we declined to adopt the minority view that a witness' pretrial identification is inadmissible if the witness fails to positively identify the defendant at trial.

    The denial of appellant's motion to sever was within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb the ruling absent a showing of clear abuse of that discretion. OCGA ยง 17-8-4; Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267 (1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984). Appellant has failed to show that the number of defendants created confusion as to the evidence and law applicable to each individual defendant; that evidence admissible against appellant's co-defendant was considered against appellant despite cautionary instructions to the contrary; and that appellant's defenses were antagonistic to those of his co-defendant.

  9. Perry v. State

    327 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    No such showing is manifest here. Perry's co-defendant testified and was cross-examined by counsel for Perry. Proper cautionary instructions to the jury were given. We find no abuse of discretion. See also Stephens v. State, 170 Ga. App. 267 (1) ( 316 S.E.2d 847) (1984); House v. State, 170 Ga. App. 88 (4) ( 316 S.E.2d 483) (1984). 4.