Wise v. State
321 Ga. App. 39
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wise was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine; appeal challenges suppression, admission of similar transaction evidence, impeachment limits, chain of custody, and plea enforcement; arrest stemmed from bushes with crack found; identification tied Wise to the scene via a warrant-based arrest; trial proceedings included multiple suppression hearings and evidentiary rulings; the court affirmed the conviction.
- Police observed Wise near an apartment complex, recovered 191 hits of crack from a bush he had touched, and later identified him as the suspect; arrest warrant was executed after Wise refused to answer the door.
- Wise argued suppression of the arrest and identification, but the court found his arguments waived due to failure to raise them in the proper motion, and reviewed the undisputed facts de novo.
- The State sought to explain a seven-year delay with Wise’s bond forfeiture and bench warrant, which the court allowed as relevant to delay and potential flight.
- Similar transaction evidence showed prior drug offenses (1995–2004) to prove identity, motive, plan, and course of conduct, and the court found it admissible under standard governance of similar transactions.
- The trial court allowed an impeachment attempt by Wise to question an officer about past internal affairs complaints, but the court rejected the line of questioning as inappropriate collateral bad acts.
- The court held that the later, 2004 similar transaction cocaine evidence could be discussed via a chemist’s testimony and reports without admitting the actual seized substance, since the evidence related to the pending charge rather than the present case.
- Wise’s subpoena to enforce the arresting officer’s personnel file was properly denied absent specific, substantiated allegations of misconduct; the court deemed it irrelevant to guilt or innocence.
- Wise contends the plea offer should be enforced; the court found no enforceable plea because Wise did not accept the offer, thus denying enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrest suppression validity | Wise argues warrant/exit process invalid | State contends no proper challenge raised | Waived; suppression issue not properly raised; affirmed denial on the merits |
| Seven-year delay evidence | Bond forfeiture/flight related evidence should be excluded | Evidence necessary to explain delay and support flight theory | Admissible to explain delay and corroborate flight |
| Impeachment with prior bad acts | Officer biased; prior 1996 incident admissible for bias | Specific bad acts not admissible without direct relevance | Excluded; no admissible impeachment evidence under proper rules |
| Similar transaction evidence | Prior offenses should not be admitted; not sufficiently similar | Similar acts probative of bent of mind and conduct | Admissible; proper purpose, sufficient similarity and connection |
| Chain of custody and relevance of 2004 evidence | Chain of custody required for admitted substance | Substance not admitted; testimony enough to relate to charge | Chain of custody not required for the substance as evidence; testimony admissible |
| Enforcement of plea agreement | State must enforce plea | No enforceable agreement since not accepted | No error; no enforceable plea to enforce |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. State, 281 Ga. App. 385, 636 SE2d 97 (2006) (Ga. App. 2006) (evidentiary sufficiency and standard of review on appeal)
- Romano v. State, 193 Ga. App. 682, 388 SE2d 757 (1989) (Ga. App. 1989) (issues not raised in trial not reviewable on appeal; written motion required)
- Seaman v. State, 214 Ga. App. 878, 449 SE2d 526 (1994) (Ga. App. 1994) (motion to suppress must raise specific unlawful search/seizure issue)
- Gomez v. State, 266 Ga. App. 423, 597 SE2d 509 (2004) (Ga. App. 2004) (requires proper notice of issues in suppression)
- Howard v. State, 262 Ga. App. 198, 585 SE2d 164 (2003) (Ga. App. 2003) (admissibility of similar transaction evidence for motive/plan/identity)
- Mullins v. State, 269 Ga. 157, 496 SE2d 252 (1998) (Ga. 1998) (temporal proximity of similar transaction to charged crime affects weight not admissibility)
- Lee v. State, 250 Ga. App. 110, 550 SE2d 696 (2001) (Ga. App. 2001) (similar transaction evidence relevance to conduct)
- Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415, 349 SE2d 717 (1986) (Ga. 1986) (corpus delicti and drug possession proof principles)