Lecounte v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lecounte v. State

359 S.E.2d 193, 183 Ga. App. 407, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1990

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1987

Docket74775

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 359 S.E.2d 193 (Lecounte 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

Lecounte v. State, 359 S.E.2d 193, 183 Ga. App. 407, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1990 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

Lecounte appeals his convictions of armed robbery and simple battery. Held:

1. The appellant complains that during the call of the calendar, the district attorney made a prejudicial reference to certain prior conduct on the part of defense counsel. However, the record reveals that defense counsel declined the opportunity either to examine the prospective jurors on this issue or to have corrective instructions given to the jury. “In order to warrant the grant of a mistrial, there is a burden of showing not only error but prejudice.” Kennedy v. State, 179 Ga. App. 587, 592 (4) (347 SE2d 604) (1986). The appellant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied.

2. The appellant further contends that the state’s case was based on the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice. However, it appears from an examination of the transcript that the testimony of the accomplice, Stewart, was corroborated in several respects. In particular, there was testimony that a ski mask was found in front of the trailer in which the appellant resided; and a police detective with a background in “tracking” identified a footprint found at the crime scene as being similar to the pattern on a tennis shoe found in the appellant’s trailer.

“In Georgia the testimony of an accomplice used to convict the accused of a crime must be supported by independent corroborating evidence as to the identity and participation of the accused tending to connect him to the crime or leading to the inference that he is guilty.” Eubanks v. State, 240 Ga. 544, 545 (242 SE2d 41) (1978). The necessary corroboration may be by circumstantial evidence. Blalock v. *408 State, 250 Ga. 441, 443 (4) (298 SE2d 477) (1983). Slight corroboration of the evidence is sufficient. Bryant v. State, 179 Ga. App. 653 (347 SE2d 301) (1986). We find ample corroborating evidence in the present case to support the denial of the appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

Decided June 22, 1987. John E. Pirkle, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Benham, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

Lecounte appeals his convictions of armed robbery and simple battery. Held:

1. The appellant complains that during the call of the calendar, the district attorney made a prejudicial reference to certain prior conduct on the part of defense counsel. However, the record reveals that defense counsel declined the opportunity either to examine the prospective jurors on this issue or to have corrective instructions given to the jury. “In order to warrant the grant of a mistrial, there is a burden of showing not only error but prejudice.” Kennedy v. State, 179 Ga. App. 587, 592 (4) (347 SE2d 604) (1986). The appellant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied.

2. The appellant further contends that the state’s case was based on the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice. However, it appears from an examination of the transcript that the testimony of the accomplice, Stewart, was corroborated in several respects. In particular, there was testimony that a ski mask was found in front of the trailer in which the appellant resided; and a police detective with a background in “tracking” identified a footprint found at the crime scene as being similar to the pattern on a tennis shoe found in the appellant’s trailer.

“In Georgia the testimony of an accomplice used to convict the accused of a crime must be supported by independent corroborating evidence as to the identity and participation of the accused tending to connect him to the crime or leading to the inference that he is guilty.” Eubanks v. State, 240 Ga. 544, 545 (242 SE2d 41) (1978). The necessary corroboration may be by circumstantial evidence. Blalock v. *408 State, 250 Ga. 441, 443 (4) (298 SE2d 477) (1983). Slight corroboration of the evidence is sufficient. Bryant v. State, 179 Ga. App. 653 (347 SE2d 301) (1986). We find ample corroborating evidence in the present case to support the denial of the appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

Decided June 22, 1987. John E. Pirkle, for appellant. Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Benham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.E.2d 193, 183 Ga. App. 407, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lecounte-v-state-gactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack