Robertson v. State
306 Ga. App. 721
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Robertson was convicted by a jury of selling cocaine, possessing marijuana, and possessing cocaine after an undercover drug purchase.
- An undercover officer, with a confidential informant, arranged a controlled purchase in a Quick Serve parking lot; the informant handed Robertson a $20, who retrieved crack cocaine and gave it to the informant.
- Officers later found a small bag of marijuana on Robertson and three pieces of crack cocaine in the car’s center ashtray.
- During trial, a nurse-like hearsay remark by the informant about Robertson’s narcotics distribution was objected to and the court gave curative instructions but denied a mistrial.
- Robertson sought a new trial arguing improper hearsay, admissibility of two prior similar transactions, incorrect jury instructions on possession, and failure to merge convictions for sale and possession.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, applying standard abuse-of-discretion review and distinguishing similar transactions from impeachment evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial for hearsay | Robertson | Robertson | No abuse of discretion; mistrial not required |
| Admission of similar transactions as evidence | Robertson argues improper ruling under OCGA § 24-9-84.1 | State properly admitted similar crimes for identity, motive, bent of mind | court did not abuse discretion; admissible for bent of mind and course of conduct |
| Jury instructions on equal access and joint possession | Instructions were improper | Robertson requested the charges and did not object | No reversible error; self-induced by request |
| Merge of possession and selling cocaine convictions | Indictment lacked detail; convictions should merge under OCGA 16-1-6 | Separate acts evidenced by different quantities and locations | No merger; evidence supported two discrete offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsome v. State, 289 Ga.App. 590 (Ga.App. 2008) (distinguishes similar transactions from impeachment evidence)
- Dawson v. State, 203 Ga.App. 146 (Ga.App. 1992) (actual evidence test rejected for merger; requires evidence-based approach)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (Ga. 2006) (adopts required evidence test for inclusion of offenses)
- Waits v. State, 282 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2007) (clarifies probative value vs prejudice in admission of evidence)
- Rogers v. State, 298 Ga.App. 895 (Ga.App. 2009) (distinct quantities; non-merger when underlying facts show separate acts)
- Ransom v. State, 298 Ga.App. 360 (Ga.App. 2009) (separate convictions may stand where offenses are supported by separate conduct)
- Metts v. State, 297 Ga.App. 330 (Ga.App. 2009) (supports separate offenses when conduct is separable)
- Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213 (Ga. 2009) (impeachment vs non-impeachment purposes; evidence admissibility)