Hair v. State
Opinion
Earl Douglas Hair appeals from his conviction and sentence for malice murder, armed robbery, and burglary.1
1. There was evidence that appellant burglarized the house of Jack Keith, and thereafter beat Keith to death with a stick and robbed him. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Before trial, an expert witness for the prosecution performed tests in which he compared bloody shoeprints from the victim’s house with the sole of a shoe that appellant had worn on the date of the crimes. The expert prepared no written report concerning the tests. At trial, appellant moved to exclude the expert’s testimony, on the ground that under OCGA § 17-7-211 a written report should have been provided to appellant before trial. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant enumerates that ruling as error. We find no error, since § 17-7-211 applies only where there is a writing. Law v. [285]*285State, 251 Ga. 525, 528 (2) (307 SE2d 904) (1983).2
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
417 S.E.2d 657 (Hair v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.