Montgomery v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Montgomery v. State

268 S.E.2d 723, 154 Ga. App. 311, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1980

Docket59549

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 268 S.E.2d 723 (Montgomery 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

Montgomery v. State, 268 S.E.2d 723, 154 Ga. App. 311, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Chief Judge.

The only enumeration of error directed against this armed robbery conviction is that the trial court erred "in allowing photo-copies of pictures to be placed in evidence and in not suppressing all identification based on the photographs.” Appellant cites Code § 38-203 (the best evidence rule) and Cox v. State, 93 Ga. App. 533 (92 SE2d 260) (1956), holding that photostatic copies are ordinarily secondary evidence. What he ignores is that, while such copies may be secondary evidence of the original, they were here primary evidence of the fact to be proved; that is, that two witnesses to the robbery were shown a "line-up” composed of photocopies of photographs of the defendant and other persons, from which each identified the defendant as the person seen committing the hold-up. These photqcopies are attached to the record on appeal, and, as to all pictures, they are clear enough to be easily recognizable. From this set of pictures the jury, as well as this court, could easily satisfy themselves that the likeness of the defendant along with that of others composed a fair test of the witness’ ability to identify the defendant. The objection was without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur. *312 Submitted March 5,1980 Decided April 10, 1980. Carlton Vines, for appellant. William M. Campbell, District Attorney, James A. Meaney, III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Deen, Chief Judge.

The only enumeration of error directed against this armed robbery conviction is that the trial court erred "in allowing photo-copies of pictures to be placed in evidence and in not suppressing all identification based on the photographs.” Appellant cites Code § 38-203 (the best evidence rule) and Cox v. State, 93 Ga. App. 533 (92 SE2d 260) (1956), holding that photostatic copies are ordinarily secondary evidence. What he ignores is that, while such copies may be secondary evidence of the original, they were here primary evidence of the fact to be proved; that is, that two witnesses to the robbery were shown a "line-up” composed of photocopies of photographs of the defendant and other persons, from which each identified the defendant as the person seen committing the hold-up. These photqcopies are attached to the record on appeal, and, as to all pictures, they are clear enough to be easily recognizable. From this set of pictures the jury, as well as this court, could easily satisfy themselves that the likeness of the defendant along with that of others composed a fair test of the witness’ ability to identify the defendant. The objection was without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur. *312 Submitted March 5,1980 Decided April 10, 1980. Carlton Vines, for appellant. William M. Campbell, District Attorney, James A. Meaney, III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 S.E.2d 723, 154 Ga. App. 311, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack