Fort v. State
This text of 558 S.E.2d 1 (Fort v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A jury convicted Dante Fort and Andre Ray Peck in a joint trial of two counts of malice murder, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and one count of cruelty to animals in the shooting death of Christopher Lynch and Christonia Woods.1 [519]*519On appeal, Fort contends that the trial court erred in admitting his statements and Peck contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that a witness identified Peck from a police photograph. Because we find no error requiring reversal, we affirm.
1. The evidence at trial showed that the victims Christopher Lynch and Christonia Woods were selling marijuana from an apartment in Clayton County. The marijuana and the proceeds from its sale were kept in the same drawer in the kitchen. On the evening of September 21, 1999, Marcus Robinson was present in the apartment with Lynch. Peck came to the apartment and went with Lynch into the kitchen; he purchased marijuana and left, saying that he would return later. Later that evening, when Peck returned to the apartment, Woods, Lynch, and Robinson were present. As Lynch opened the door for Peck, Peck entered the apartment moving sideways along the wall, allowing Fort to kick open the door and force his way into the apartment. Fort was brandishing a gun and yelled, ‘You know what it is.” Lynch grabbed for the gun, and Robinson, running to the back of the apartment, heard a gunshot. Robinson broke through a window in the bedroom and then heard two more shots. The shots killed Lynch, Woods, and a dog.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Fort and Peck guilty of the crimes charged.2
2. Fort concedes that there were sufficient facts in the record for the trial court to conclude that his incriminating statements and confession to police were voluntary.3 He nevertheless contends that the statements were improperly admitted at trial because they were the product of an unlawful arrest. Fort did not raise the issue of the alleged illegal arrest prior to trial, and, therefore, this claim will not be considered on appeal.4
3. In his sole enumeration of error, Peck asserts that a detective improperly informed the jury that the photograph of Peck used in a photographic line-up was a mug shot and thereby introduced evidence of Peck’s bad character. A review of the record, however, reveals that the detective’s testimony did not inform the jury of the source of the photograph. Therefore, there was no error in the trial court’s admission of the testimony and evidence.
Judgments affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
558 S.E.2d 1, 274 Ga. 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fort-v-state-ga-2001.