Handspike v. State

631 S.E.2d 730, 279 Ga. App. 496, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1712, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 622
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 19, 2006
DocketA06A0626
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 631 S.E.2d 730 (Handspike 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
Handspike v. State, 631 S.E.2d 730, 279 Ga. App. 496, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1712, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Quinton Handspike appeals from his convictions on two counts of armed robbery. In his sole enumeration of error, Handspike contends the trial court erred when it refused to redact statements showing that he was in jail awaiting trial at the time he wrote a letter to his girlfriend.* 1 Finding no error, we affirm.

It is well settled in Georgia that “evidence that a defendant has been incarcerated in connection with the crime for which the defendant is on trial does not place the defendant’s character in issue *497 [cits.]” and does not require reversal. Murray v. State, 271 Ga. 504, 506 (5) (521 SE2d 564) (1999); Knowles v. State, 245 Ga. App. 523, 525 (4) (538 SE2d 175) (2000). Handspike attempts to avoid our application of this rule of law by arguing that he is not making a character objection to the evidence. Instead, he asserts we should reverse because the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighed its probative value. The resulting prejudice, he argues, is that the jury could infer from this evidence that “he was too dangerous to release on bond.” As this argument is merely a character objection in disguise, we find that it has no merit. Id. See also Ferrell v. State, 198 Ga. App. 270, 272 (3) (401 SE2d 301) (1991).

Decided May 19, 2006. Gerard B. Kleinrock, for appellant. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Ruffin, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.
1

The letters were admitted to show that Handspike was attempting to persuade his girlfriend to refuse to testify against him.

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

Related

Dade v. State
666 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
631 S.E.2d 730, 279 Ga. App. 496, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1712, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handspike-v-state-gactapp-2006.