Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Keasler v. State

Keasler v. State

301 S.E.2d 915, 165 Ga. App. 561, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1950
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 28, 1983
Docket65063
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 301 S.E.2d 915 (Keasler 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
Keasler v. State, 301 S.E.2d 915, 165 Ga. App. 561, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1950 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinions

Shulman, Chief Judge.

While on probation for a previous offense, appellant was accused . of two incidents of child molestation. Following an evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to a petition to revoke appellant’s probation, the trial court entered an order requiring that appellant serve the remainder of his probated sentence.

1. In two enumerations of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in permitting the two complaining witnesses to testify. That argument is based on a contention that the two girls, ages 9 and 13, were incompetent to testify due to their infancy. There was no objection on that ground in the trial court, so no issue regarding the witness’ competency is properly before this court. OCGA § 24-9-7 (Code Ann. § 38-1601). Smith v. State, 144 Ga. App. 579 (2) (241 SE2d 465).

2. Appellant’s remaining enumerations are on the general grounds. “ ‘[T]he quantum of evidence sufficient to justify revocation of probation is less than that necessary to sustain a conviction in the first instance, and where there is even slight evidence of misconduct the appellate court will not interfere with revocation unless there has been manifest abuse of discretion.’ [Cit.]” Johnson v. State, 142 Ga. App. 124, 126 (235 SE2d 550).

Though the evidence in this case was not overwhelming, the record does not show an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of that court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., Quillian, P. J., McMurray, P. J, Banke, Birdsong, Sognier and Pope, JJ, concur. Carley, J., dissents.

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

Related

Clemons v. State
704 S.E.2d 762 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011)
Simmons v. State
585 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
In the Interest of K. D. J.
540 S.E.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
In Re KDJ
540 S.E.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
White v. State
445 S.E.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Hunter v. State
391 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Kelly v. State
353 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Wilkerson v. State
339 S.E.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Anglin v. State
327 S.E.2d 776 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Keasler v. State
301 S.E.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 S.E.2d 915, 165 Ga. App. 561, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keasler-v-state-gactapp-1983.