Wilson v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Soto v. State

    285 Ga. 367 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness when the witness refused to answer questions altogether

    See also Rachel v. State, 247 Ga. 130, 135-136 ( 274 SE2d 475) (1981). Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114 ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003), upon which the State relies, is not apposite. In that case, the witness denied making the prior inconsistent statement.

  2. Williams v. State

    280 Ga. 539 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 10 times

    Nonetheless, Williams contends that the eyewitness identification was improperly admitted into evidence at trial as a prior inconsistent statement. As an initial matter, Williams did not object to the introduction of this evidence, and, as a result, he has waived the right to challenge its admission on appeal. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). Moreover, even if the argument had been preserved by objection, the trial court properly admitted the evidence.

  3. Pierre v. State

    635 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    (Citations and footnote omitted.) Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). 3. Pierre contends that the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony that Pierre was in a "known drug area."

  4. Kania v. State

    634 S.E.2d 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    But this argument was waived by Kania's failure to make a contemporaneous objection to the evidence at trial. Brinson v. State, 276 Ga. 671 ( 581 SE2d 548) (2003); Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003); Roseberry v. State, 274 Ga. 301, 303-304 (3) ( 553 SE2d 589) (2001). 5. Kania further asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

  5. Glidewell v. State

    279 Ga. App. 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 22 times

    Glidewell claims that the trial court also improperly allowed several other instances of improper hearsay to be admitted into evidence, but trial counsel failed to object, waiving the issue for purposes of appeal. See Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). 5. Glidewell argues that his conviction must be reversed because Jones County was not the proper venue for the trial, and because the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the law of venue.

  6. Parramore v. State

    277 Ga. App. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 7 times

    Parramore's argument overlooks the fact that his admissions to the deputies constituted direct evidence of his guilt. Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 118 (4) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find Parramore guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

  7. Leaptrot v. State

    272 Ga. App. 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 20 times
    Noting that courts have upheld admission of evidence where the similar transaction occurred 11–19 years prior to the crime at issue

    Because his attorney failed to object to its admission, however, this issue is waived. Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). (e) Leaptrot asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object and/or file a motion for mistrial following two remarks made by the prosecutor during opening statement: (1) "The evidence will show that Defendant is a convicted felon, a convicted sex offender from Colorado" and (2) the "Defendant is a sexual predator."

  8. Robinson v. State

    271 Ga. App. 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that "because the witnesses [who did not recall many of the facts surrounding the incident but gave responsive answers to some questions] were present at trial and testified, Crawford does not apply"

    And when a witness denies making a pretrial statement to the police, the content of such a prior statement is admissible as being wholly inconsistent with the witness's testimony. Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 116 (1) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003). Here, as in Wilson, the witnesses in issue did not remain silent when called to the stand or merely claim loss of memory as to everything.

  9. Perdue v. State

    609 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Long v. State, 265 Ga. App. 605, 606 (1) ( 595 SE2d 93) (2004). See Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003); King v. State, 269 Ga. App. 373, 376 (3) ( 604 SE2d 230) (2004). Although Perdue timely objected to Garner's testimony about the victim's statements, he did so only on hearsay grounds, and the trial court overruled the objection based on the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.

  10. Mizell v. State

    598 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    ]" Further, an officer's testimony regarding a witness' identification of a perpetrator on the scene shortly after the crime was committed is admissible as res gestae.Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117 (2) ( 587 SE2d 9) (2003).Smith v. State, 236 Ga. App. 122, 125 (4) ( 511 SE2d 223) (1999), citing Stovall v. State, 216 Ga. App. 138-139 (1) ( 453 SE2d 110) (1995) (witness' statement to officer made on the scene shortly after crime committed is admissible as res gestae); accord Christensen v. State, 245 Ga. App. 165 ( 537 SE2d 446) (2000); Evans v. State, 201 Ga. App. 20, 26 (4) ( 410 SE2d 146) (1991).