Lunberry v. State

500 S.E.2d 625, 231 Ga. App. 706, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1684, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 522
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 30, 1998
DocketA98A0430
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 500 S.E.2d 625 (Lunberry 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
Lunberry v. State, 500 S.E.2d 625, 231 Ga. App. 706, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1684, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Blackburn, Judge.

Darren Gene Lunberry appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana, based, in part, on the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction upon the admission of similar transaction evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we are compelled to reverse.

It is undisputed, that on July 5, 1995, Lunberry was stopped by Officer Sam Duff at a roadside license and insurance inspection checkpoint and was ultimately charged with possession of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana. It is also undisputed that the trial court failed to give a limiting charge to the jury upon the admission of similar transaction evidence involving prior convictions for DUI. Although Lunberry made no specific objection regarding the lack of a limiting instruction relating to the similar transaction evidence admitted by the court, he reserved any objections to the court’s charge.

This case is controlled by Hinson v. State, 229 Ga. App. 840, 842 (3) (494 SE2d 693) (1997). The admission of similar transaction evidence without accompanying limiting instructions is harmful as a matter of law. “[T]he trial court committed reversible error in failing to give, sua sponte, a limiting instruction contemporaneous with the admission of extrinsic acts or similar crimes evidence.” Id. As a result, Lunberry’s conviction must be reversed.

Based on the above, it is unnecessary to address Lunberry’s remaining enumerations of error.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Eldridge, J., concur. Lydia J. Sartain, District Attorney, Lucy K. Henry, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Related

Jones v. State
511 S.E.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Fuller v. State
509 S.E.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
500 S.E.2d 625, 231 Ga. App. 706, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1684, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunberry-v-state-gactapp-1998.