Pridgett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pridgett v. State

326 S.E.2d 581, 173 Ga. App. 409, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1562

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 31, 1985

Docket69377

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 326 S.E.2d 581 (Pridgett 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

Pridgett v. State, 326 S.E.2d 581, 173 Ga. App. 409, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Freddie Pridgett was convicted of armed robbery of a convenience store in Columbus, Georgia, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. On appeal he enumerates essentially two errors. Held:

1. Appellant complains the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree. The proprietress of the convenience store identified appellant as the armed robber from a photographic lineup shortly after the crime. She identified him in court, saying that while he had held a gun to her chest, she had plenty of time to observe him and would never forget his face. After the robbery, she showed the police a magazine which the robber had handled just before the act, and appellant’s fingerprints were found on the magazine. Appellant admitted he had been in the store on or about the day of the crime but contended he had only had a ti£F with the proprietress concerning profane language he used to describe the magazine. Considering that credibility of witnesses is purely a jury question, this evidence is sufficient to convince any rational trier of fact of the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Boyd v. State, 244 Ga. 130, 132 (259 SE2d 71); Turner v. State, 151 Ga. App. 169, 170 (259 SE2d 171).

2. In enumerations two and three, appellant complains that his non-receipt of the fingerprint report violated his right to review scientific reports pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-211, prohibited introduction of the report as evidence, and wrongly forced the appellant to confess that he had been in the store. However, the trial court heard the parties and ruled as a matter of fact that the state’s attorney had properly mailed the reports to defense counsel and had done all she reasonably could do to “furnish the defendant with a copy” of the report. OCGA § 17-7-211 (c). In fact, the defense attorney apparently already knew of the report and was not surprised by its admission at trial. Finally, we do not agree that the admission of the fingerprint analysis “forced” appellant to admit he was in the store, where the choice to so testify was obviously his own.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

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

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Freddie Pridgett was convicted of armed robbery of a convenience store in Columbus, Georgia, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. On appeal he enumerates essentially two errors. Held:

1. Appellant complains the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree. The proprietress of the convenience store identified appellant as the armed robber from a photographic lineup shortly after the crime. She identified him in court, saying that while he had held a gun to her chest, she had plenty of time to observe him and would never forget his face. After the robbery, she showed the police a magazine which the robber had handled just before the act, and appellant’s fingerprints were found on the magazine. Appellant admitted he had been in the store on or about the day of the crime but contended he had only had a ti£F with the proprietress concerning profane language he used to describe the magazine. Considering that credibility of witnesses is purely a jury question, this evidence is sufficient to convince any rational trier of fact of the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Boyd v. State, 244 Ga. 130, 132 (259 SE2d 71); Turner v. State, 151 Ga. App. 169, 170 (259 SE2d 171).

2. In enumerations two and three, appellant complains that his non-receipt of the fingerprint report violated his right to review scientific reports pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-211, prohibited introduction of the report as evidence, and wrongly forced the appellant to confess that he had been in the store. However, the trial court heard the parties and ruled as a matter of fact that the state’s attorney had properly mailed the reports to defense counsel and had done all she reasonably could do to “furnish the defendant with a copy” of the report. OCGA § 17-7-211 (c). In fact, the defense attorney apparently already knew of the report and was not surprised by its admission at trial. Finally, we do not agree that the admission of the fingerprint analysis “forced” appellant to admit he was in the store, where the choice to so testify was obviously his own.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.E.2d 581, 173 Ga. App. 409, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pridgett-v-state-gactapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack