Houston v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Houston v. State

383 S.E.2d 571, 192 Ga. App. 73, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 879

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1989

DocketA89A0297

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 383 S.E.2d 571 (Houston 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

Houston v. State, 383 S.E.2d 571, 192 Ga. App. 73, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

Pope, Judge.

Defendant Johnnie Lee Houston appeals from his convictions and sentences for the offenses of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and possession of cocaine. Held:

1. Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine. We have examined the evidence and find it sufficient to support the jury verdict under the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State, over objection, to introduce into evidence defendant’s prior conviction for robbery. The record shows that while on direct examination, defendant attempted to explain that he possessed marijuana for medicinal purposes, in that he smoked it on occasion to relieve headaches and eye problems. The State argued, under the authority of Phillips v. State, 254 Ga. 370 (329 SE2d 475) (1985), that by this testimony defendant had put his character in issue and that it should be allowed to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior conviction.

We agree with the defendant that this situation is controlled by the holding in Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753 (363 SE2d 529) (1988), in which the Georgia Supreme Court expressly overruled Phillips. “The defendant’s testimony that he committed the criminal act of [possessing and] smoking marijuana did not in and of itself place his character in issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). [Jones] at 759 (1) (b).” Hurston v. State, 189 Ga. App. 748, 750 (377 SE2d 519) (1989). Although the State was entitled to explore fully defendant’s testimony concerning his use of marijuana on cross-examination, under the authority of Jones defendant did not place his character in [74]*74issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b) and the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the evidence of defendant’s prior conviction to be admitted. Hurston, supra; McGuire v. State, 188 Ga. App. 891 (2) (374 SE2d 816) (1988).

Decided May 22, 1989 Rehearing denied June 22, 1989. Johnnie Houston, pro se. Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Robert M. Coker, J. Michael McDaniel, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

3. In light of our holding in Division 2, supra, it is unnecessary for us to consider defendant’s remaining enumerations.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Pope, Judge.

Defendant Johnnie Lee Houston appeals from his convictions and sentences for the offenses of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and possession of cocaine. Held:

1. Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine. We have examined the evidence and find it sufficient to support the jury verdict under the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State, over objection, to introduce into evidence defendant’s prior conviction for robbery. The record shows that while on direct examination, defendant attempted to explain that he possessed marijuana for medicinal purposes, in that he smoked it on occasion to relieve headaches and eye problems. The State argued, under the authority of Phillips v. State, 254 Ga. 370 (329 SE2d 475) (1985), that by this testimony defendant had put his character in issue and that it should be allowed to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior conviction.

We agree with the defendant that this situation is controlled by the holding in Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753 (363 SE2d 529) (1988), in which the Georgia Supreme Court expressly overruled Phillips. “The defendant’s testimony that he committed the criminal act of [possessing and] smoking marijuana did not in and of itself place his character in issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). [Jones] at 759 (1) (b).” Hurston v. State, 189 Ga. App. 748, 750 (377 SE2d 519) (1989). Although the State was entitled to explore fully defendant’s testimony concerning his use of marijuana on cross-examination, under the authority of Jones defendant did not place his character in [74]*74issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b) and the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the evidence of defendant’s prior conviction to be admitted. Hurston, supra; McGuire v. State, 188 Ga. App. 891 (2) (374 SE2d 816) (1988).

Decided May 22, 1989 Rehearing denied June 22, 1989. Johnnie Houston, pro se. Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Robert M. Coker, J. Michael McDaniel, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

3. In light of our holding in Division 2, supra, it is unnecessary for us to consider defendant’s remaining enumerations.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 S.E.2d 571, 192 Ga. App. 73, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-state-gactapp-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack