Dennard v. State
313 Ga. App. 419
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dennard appeals his conviction for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and challenges evidentiary rulings.
- Approximately four years before the charged incident, Dennard and two others attempted to steal a woman's purse in a store parking lot; a gun was fired during the struggle and police later found Dennard with two guns under his seat.
- Earlier, Dennard robbed a jewelry store using a gun to threaten the clerk and pled guilty to robbery by force.
- At issue was the admissibility of similar transaction evidence tying the current crime to prior offenses with a gun and force; the trial court admitted the evidence with a limiting instruction.
- Dennard also challenges hearsay testimony from a similar transaction witness about prior meetings between suspects and Dennard; the court ruled the objection waived and held the testimony non-hearsay as it described investigative steps rather than out-of-court statements.
- Dennard argues the court should have granted immunity to a jail inmate to testify for the defense; Georgia law vests immunity discretion in the district attorney, not the court, and there is no provision for defense witnesses’ immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar transaction evidence | Dennard argues lack of similarity to current crime. | Dennard concedes some similarities; trial court acted within discretion. | No abuse; sufficient similarity and proper limiting instruction. |
| Hearsay objection to testimony from a similar transaction witness | Waiver; testimony violated hearsay rules. | Even if raised, testimony was not hearsay as it described investigation, not out-of-court statements. | Waiver; testimony not hearsay. |
| Immunity for defense witness (jail inmate) | Immunity should be granted to defense witness. | DA controls immunity; court has no discretion and no provision for defense immunity. | No error; immunity not required or provided by statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila v. State, 289 Ga. 409 (Ga. 2011) (similar transaction evidence requires connectedness to charged crime; abuse of discretion standard)
- Pace v. State, 272 Ga. App. 16 (Ga. App. 2005) (similar transactions may be admitted when there is substantial similarity)
- Wood v. State, 304 Ga. App. 52 (Ga. App. 2010) (hearsay objections and waiver principles in trial testimony)
- Howard v. State, 305 Ga. App. 159 (Ga. App. 2010) (hearsay analysis hinges on whether statements are offered for truth)
- Dampier v. State, 249 Ga. 299 (Ga. 1982) (immunity and witness protection; DA control of use immunity)
- House v. State, 203 Ga. App. 55 (Ga. App. 1992) (no error in denying use immunity to defense witness)