Lynch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lynch v. State

279 S.E.2d 537, 158 Ga. App. 232, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 8, 1981

Docket61341

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 279 S.E.2d 537 (Lynch 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

Lynch v. State, 279 S.E.2d 537, 158 Ga. App. 232, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

A petition for revocation of appellant’s probation was filed, charging him with the commission of armed robbery, burglary and [233]*233simple battery. A hearing was held and appellant’s probation was revoked. He appeals.

Decided April 8, 1981. John P. Howell, for appellant. J. W. Morgan, District Attorney, Michael Walker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

The quantum of evidence sufficient to authorize the revocation of probation is “slight evidence.” Mingo v. State, 155 Ga. App. 284, 286 (2) (270 SE2d 700) (1980). On appeal, appellant urges that the photographic identification procedure by which the victim identified him as the perpetrator of the crimes was “unnecessarily suggestive” and that the victim’s subsequent in-court identification was “tainted” thereby. Appellant did not object at the hearing to the victim’s in-court identification testimony as “tainted” or otherwise raise the issue of “suggestive” identification procedures. See Dodson v. State, 237 Ga. 607, 608 (3) (229 SE2d 364) (1976). Moreover, the transcript reveals that considering the “totality of the circumstances” the testimony of the victim was properly admitted. See Eiland v. State, 246 Ga. 112 (268 SE2d 922) (1980). The evidence supports the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s probation. See Johnson v. State, 142 Ga. App. 124 (235 SE2d 550) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

A petition for revocation of appellant’s probation was filed, charging him with the commission of armed robbery, burglary and [233]*233simple battery. A hearing was held and appellant’s probation was revoked. He appeals.

Decided April 8, 1981. John P. Howell, for appellant. J. W. Morgan, District Attorney, Michael Walker, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

The quantum of evidence sufficient to authorize the revocation of probation is “slight evidence.” Mingo v. State, 155 Ga. App. 284, 286 (2) (270 SE2d 700) (1980). On appeal, appellant urges that the photographic identification procedure by which the victim identified him as the perpetrator of the crimes was “unnecessarily suggestive” and that the victim’s subsequent in-court identification was “tainted” thereby. Appellant did not object at the hearing to the victim’s in-court identification testimony as “tainted” or otherwise raise the issue of “suggestive” identification procedures. See Dodson v. State, 237 Ga. 607, 608 (3) (229 SE2d 364) (1976). Moreover, the transcript reveals that considering the “totality of the circumstances” the testimony of the victim was properly admitted. See Eiland v. State, 246 Ga. 112 (268 SE2d 922) (1980). The evidence supports the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s probation. See Johnson v. State, 142 Ga. App. 124 (235 SE2d 550) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 S.E.2d 537, 158 Ga. App. 232, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack