Douglas S. Grimes appeals his conviction of the possession and sale of marijuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Detective Fred Marchmand of the Decatur Police Department received information from a confidential informant, who had given him reliable information in the past, that a drug sale would occur in the parking lot of the Kroger store on Church Street in Decatur on the evening of March 16. This was confirmed by information from two other informants. A black car was to bring drugs to a white frame house on Decatur Roаd across from the Pizza Hut. A red pickup truck would be in the front of the house. A red pickup truck, driven by a white male, was to deliver drugs to a black male in a white car in the Kroger parking lot. These two locations are approximately three blocks apart. Marchmand hаd received information prior to that time from other informants that this particular house on Decatur Road was involved in drug activities. He had personally staked out the same house, off-and-on, for the last two months but had observed no illegal activities. He had not been given any names as to who would *373 be involved in the drug sale but he had been given the red pickup truck and a tag number. The tag number was that of the defendant Grimes. The same informant had told him earlier that a drug sale would occur at the Kroger store parking lot on March 14. He staked out that loсation that night but did not observe any sale.
On the way to his stakeout position in the Kroger parking lot on March 16, Marchmand passed by the house on Decatur Road and saw a large black car enter the driveway. Two police units were across the street. They saw a black Mercury Monarch enter the driveway of the Grimes house and a white male get out of the car and take a large plastic bag out of the trunk and take it into the house. The bag appeared to have something in it as the man used both hands to carry it. The man stayed in the housе for approximately 15 minutes. Two white males exited the house. One man carried a cardboard box and placed it in the back of the red pickup truck and departed in the direction of the Kroger store. He was followed by Investigator Crowder. The man who had been driving thе Mercury had an empty plastic bag which he placed in his car and left. He was apprehended by the remaining officers and identified as John Kucharski — a co-defendant. When he was arrested there was a 9 millimeter revolver, loaded with hollow-point bullets, laying beside him. He had a permit to carry the weapon.
Detective Marchmand saw a white Buick Electra, driven by a black male enter the Kroger parking lot. A few minutes thereafter he saw a red pickup truck enter the parking lot — being followed by Investigator Crowder, and park beside the whitе Buick. The black man left his car with a brown paper bag in his hand and entered the truck. He stayed for only one or two minutes and left — picking up the cardboard box from the rear of the truck and placing it in his car. The police moved in to apprehend the suspects. Police cars pulled in front and back of the Buick and the driver — Percy West, was arrested. The box contained approximately 14.6 pounds of marijuana. Grimes fled in the pickup truck. He was pursued by two officers in different cars. A chase ensued through Decatur and out onto Interstatе 285 and finally the Stone Mountain Freeway where Grimes was arrested. No money was found in the truck.
Grimes was taken to police headquarters and advised of his Miranda rights. He told Detective Kersey where he had thrown the money from his truck during the chase. The officers went to that locаtion — the intersection of1-285 and the Stone Mountain Freeway and recovered $5,190.00. Defendant Grimes brings this appeal. Held:
1. Error is asserted in the ruling of the court “denying appellant’s Motion for Directed Verdict of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction ...”
*374
First, counsel has not cited us to that portion of the record — 1277 pages in length, in which he made such a motion. Our research reveals no motion for directed verdict was made on behalf of Grimes but was made.by his co-defendant Kucharski. Secondly, the evidence is more than sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find the existence of the offense charged. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. We find no abuse of discretion of the trial court in refusing to sever the trial of Grimes from that of Kucharski. Kucharski was seen taking a large plastic bag into Grimes’ house and Grimes and Kucharski leaving shortly thereafter. Grimes exited the house with a cardboard box which was later found to contain 14.6 pounds of marijuana, and Kucharski was seen leaving with the empty bag which was placed in his car. Examination of the bag after his arrest showed it to contain residue of marijuana. Grimes was followed from his house to the point of sale of the marijuana to West by an officer. Thereafter the sale by Grimes to West was observed by four police officers. This was one continuous transaction.
“A
motion for severance [of defendants] is a matter сommitted to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Cit.] The ruling of the trial court is subject to reversal only for an abuse of that discretion. [Cits.] In weighing for an abuse of discretion, the appellate court must satisfy itself that the appellant has suffered prejudice of a substantial nature. [Cits.] The burden is on appellant to make a clear showing of prejudice [cit.]; that the prejudice was harmful [cit.]; and that the harm could have been avoided by a separate trial.”
Montgomery v. State,
There were only two defendants, and the evidence relating to Kucharski ceased before the evidence incriminating Grimes started. Thus, we find no confusion of parties, or of the evidence, as to each defendant. We have found no antagonistic defenses. See
Cain v. State,
3. As stated above, we find no prejudicе to Grimes from evidence admitted against Kucharski that a gun, weapon clip, and gun case, were found beside him in his car at the time of his arrest. “It is well settled that evidentiary facts pertaining to ‘(t)he flight of the accused, where and when arrested, whether he resisted or not, how he was armed, and all the circumstances attending his arrest, are admissible to be considered by the jury for what they are worth.’ [Cits.]”
Newsome v. State,
4. The defendant contests the admissibility in evidence of testimony of Detective Kersey that Grimes told him where to find the money he received from West in payment for thе marijuana. Grimes testified that he repeatedly asked for an attorney but the officers formed a ring around him, ignored his request for a lawyer, and continued questioning him until he told them what they wanted. He stated that he was threatened with the forfeiture of his truck and his carpenter tools in the truck — with which he made his living, if he did not cooperate. He said he was promised there would be no forfeiture of his truck or tools, he would not be charged with any traffic offenses for his attempted escape, and he would be permitted to have a low bond if he confessed. Detective Kersey’s testimony conflicted with this version of the events preceding Grimes’ statement. Kersey stated that he advised Grimes of his Miranda rights — including his right to an attorney. Grimes did not request a lawyer and told him where he had thrown the money. After he secured the admission Grimes started crying and stаted that he feared for his life and that of his family and requested an attorney. Kersey stopped the questioning *376 and recovered the money. He was positive that the admission came before the request for an attorney. Grimes was just as positive that the request for the attorney came before the admission. The trial court decided the conflict against the defendant and admitted Kersey’s testimony.
“Once a trial court determines that a statement was freely and voluntarily given in compliance with the requirements of Jackson v. Denno,
“Fact findings and credibility findings in regard to admissibility of such a statement based on voluntariness made by a trial judge must be accepted by this court unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. [Cit.]”
Hurt v. State,
5. The trial court did not err in refusing to require the State to identify the informant who had given information of thе pending drug sale to the police. Public policy in Georgia favors nondisclosure of the identity of an informant in the interest of the free flow of information about criminal activity.
Keith v. State,
6. The defense counsel moved for a continuаnce as the trial was nearing its conclusion on the ground that two of his subpoenaed witnesses — David Craig and his wife, could not appear. Mrs. Craig had been in an automobile accident and was hospitalized with facial and head lacerations. She was listed in “fair condition” but there was “no projected date of recovery ...” Her husband was with her at the hospital. Their testimony would show that “Mr. Craig was involved several times with Mr. West in terms of drug deals.” This would be impeaching testimony.
A motion for continuance based on absence of a witness is addressed to the sоund discretion of the trial judge and an appellate court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown it has abused its discretion.
Alderman v. State,
First, the application was made after the State had closed and no showing was made that the witnesses would be present for the next term of court. Secondly, it appears that the testimony desired was that of David Craig and his drug deals with the State’s witness West — and no valid showing wаs made as to why he could not appear. Mrs. Craig’s testimony would have been cumulative of her husband’s testimony. Where the missing testimony is cumulative and would not contradict the testimony of the State’s witness as to any controlling point, it is not error to refuse a continuance.
Varnadoe v. State,
7. We have thoroughly examined the remaining enumerations of error and found them without merit.
Judgment affirmed.