McSears v. StateMcSears v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Beasley
Following denial of his motion for new trial, McSears appeals his conviction of aggravated assault.
1. He first enumerates as error the admission into evidence of photographs of the victim taken by a law enforcement officer shortly after the assault.
Prior to arraignment, McSears filed a
Brady
motion in which he sought any and all tangible objects intended to be introduced into evidence by the State. He also filed a motion for discovery under the
*91
Criminal Procedure Discovery Act.
Following jury selection on the afternoon the case was called for trial, defendant objected to the admission of any photographic evidence on the ground the State had not complied with its obligation to “furnish[]” copies. The trial court ruled that the State had fulfilled its obligations under the criminal discovery statute and defendant’s motion for discovery, by making the photographs available to the defense to inspect and copy. Defendant was given an opportunity to view the photographs before the next day’s commencement of the presentation of evidence.
The court did not err in overruling McSears’ objection.
There is no merit in the argument that defense counsel was misled by statements in the certificate that there was no tangible evidence in this case. The certificate could not reasonably be interpreted as containing such a representation. It directly stated that any and all physical evidence was available for examination upon counsel’s making proper arrangements with the evidence custodian. Defendant does not argue that counsel was unable to make such arrangements. We thus conclude that the State complied with its obligation *92 to make the photographs available to the defendant for inspection and copying or photographing, whatever he chose.
Nor was the State required to give defendant copies of the photographs pursuant to his Brady motion. Brady only applies to exculpatory material. Jenkins v. State, 215 Ga. App. 540, 543 (3) (451 SE2d 457) (1994).
2. McSears next enumerates as error the admission in evidence of his statement to the investigating officer.
The officer testified that he first informed McSears he wanted to talk to him about a case other than this one, and that McSears agreed to do so but stated he wanted to talk about this case as well. McSears first discussed the other case and then this one. Regarding it, he admitted he had hit the victim and stabbed her with a knife after discovering she had been involved with his friend. He was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of those rights at the beginning of the interview.
McSears argues that since his Miranda rights were not repeated before he gave the statement concerning this case, such statement should have been excluded. This issue was decided adversely to him in Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252 (1) (300 SE2d 213) (1983), and Gardner v. State, 172 Ga. App. 677, 679 (5) (324 SE2d 535) (1984). As in those instances, the evidence authorized the trial court to conclude that the advice at the beginning of the continuous interview sufficed for the duration of the interrogation even though the subject was two separate crimes.
3. The final challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence.
The victim testified that McSears hit her with his fists, cut her hair with a butcher knife and scissors, and stabbed her arm twice after learning she had gone out with his best friend. Although the photographs taken of her after the assault show she was covered in blood, it was her opinion that McSears had not intended to hurt her. McSears testified likewise, stating that he was only trying to scare her.
“A person commits the offense of simple assault when he . . . [cjommits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.”
Judgment affirmed.
McMurray, P. J, and Smith, J., concur.