Blount v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blount v. State

240 S.E.2d 216, 143 Ga. App. 845, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2532

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

Docket54584

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 S.E.2d 216 (Blount v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blount v. State, 240 S.E.2d 216, 143 Ga. App. 845, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of a three-count indictment alleging a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by making a sale of marijuana and two separate sales of heroin. Held:

1. Defendant objected to the admission of state’s Exhibit 3, a quantity of marijuana, because the chain of custody had not been established. On April 6, 1976, an agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was working on undercover drug investigations in Augusta, Georgia. That agent, in the company of another agent, made a purchase of marijuana from defendant. The substance was tagged and marked for identification, placed in an envelope, entered in a diary and kept in a locked briefcase *846 until taken to the crime lab in Atlanta by the agent where it was personally turned over to the forensic chemist, who, in turn, kept it in a locked evidence file. Although defendant alleges that the evidence might have been tampered with there is nothing to show that this was the case. This evidence was properly admitted. See Lentile v. State, 136 Ga. App. 611 (222 SE2d 86).

Submitted October 3, 1977 Decided November 14, 1977. Harrison, Jolles, Miller & Busch, Henry A. Miller, for appellant. Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, James W. Purcell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Admission of state’s Exhibits 1 and 2, separate quantities of heroin, was objected to at trial "upon the fact that a sufficient foundation has not been laid.” Counsel did not inform the court as to what was lacking with reference to laying a sufficient foundation. This objection is insufficient to raise any issue for review. Coleman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 313 (3) (183 SE2d 608).

3. As the evidence authorized conviction, the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict of acquittal.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of a three-count indictment alleging a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by making a sale of marijuana and two separate sales of heroin. Held:

1. Defendant objected to the admission of state’s Exhibit 3, a quantity of marijuana, because the chain of custody had not been established. On April 6, 1976, an agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was working on undercover drug investigations in Augusta, Georgia. That agent, in the company of another agent, made a purchase of marijuana from defendant. The substance was tagged and marked for identification, placed in an envelope, entered in a diary and kept in a locked briefcase *846 until taken to the crime lab in Atlanta by the agent where it was personally turned over to the forensic chemist, who, in turn, kept it in a locked evidence file. Although defendant alleges that the evidence might have been tampered with there is nothing to show that this was the case. This evidence was properly admitted. See Lentile v. State, 136 Ga. App. 611 (222 SE2d 86).

Submitted October 3, 1977 Decided November 14, 1977. Harrison, Jolles, Miller & Busch, Henry A. Miller, for appellant. Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, James W. Purcell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. Admission of state’s Exhibits 1 and 2, separate quantities of heroin, was objected to at trial "upon the fact that a sufficient foundation has not been laid.” Counsel did not inform the court as to what was lacking with reference to laying a sufficient foundation. This objection is insufficient to raise any issue for review. Coleman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 313 (3) (183 SE2d 608).

3. As the evidence authorized conviction, the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict of acquittal.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 216, 143 Ga. App. 845, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-state-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack