Convicted of simple battery, rape, burglary and two counts of robbery by use of force, Glenn Lerоy Montgomery appeals, *424 enumerating six errors. The evidence presented at the trial mаy be summarized as follows. On November 9,1978, at approximately 8:30 a.m., the Cottage Shop in Savannаh, Georgia was robbed. A shop employee was bound and beaten, and the proprietor was bound and. raped. Items of personal property as well as merchandise were tаken. On November 12, appellant was approached by Savannah police who wаnted to examine a black cane with a gold-colored duck’s head handle in his possessiоn, which was similar to the one alleged to have been taken in the robbery of the Cottage Shop. Appellant lived with his mother and stepfather, and appellant’s mother gave police her permission to search appellant’s room, and assisted the officers conduсting the search. Articles taken from appellant’s room pursuant to this search were identified as being “like” items carried in merchandise at the Cottage Shop. Neither victim was able to personally identify their assailants because they were blindfolded, but the proprietor stated “two black males grabbed me... I could see the hand and arm, I could tell they was [sic] black.” Susan Eskedоr, who operated a shop “three stores down” from the Cottage Shop testified that she saw two black men “walking very fast” toward her shop at about 9:00 a.m. the morning of the robbery. She was alsо unable to identify appellant as one of the two black men, but she positively identified the distinctive cane as carried by one of these individuals.
1. Appellant protests the overruling of his mоtion to suppress evidence found in his room pursuant to the warrantless search, contending that under the landlord-tenant relationship his parents had no right to consent to the search. At the рretrial hearing on this motion, however, appellant’s mother testified that appellant wаs not working and paid no rent, and there was considerable evidence that she and her husband wеre heads of the household. “[T]he voluntary consent of the head of a household to the search of premises owned or controlled by such head of the household is sufficient to authоrize a search of the premises without a search warrant, and such search does not viоlate the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Tolbert v. State,
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the chief detective in charge of the case tо remain in the courtroom during the trial to advise the district attorney. When the rule of sequestration was invoked and counsel for appellant objected to the detective’s presenсe, the district attorney explained that her testimony would be limited to identification of the articles found in appellant’s room because she did not investigate the scene of the
*425
robbеry, but “did the follow-up work.” Obviously here, as in
Ratliff v. State,
3. In his third enumeration appellant presents the ingenuous argument that it was improper to allow the testimony of Susan Eskedor because it was “unnecеssarily prejudicial” to him. Not only is this contention unsupported by citation of legal authority, it is clеar that the testimony of this witness was relevant, competent and essential to connect thе appellant with the crime through the unusual cane she saw in the hands of one of two black males near the scene of the robbery. It is also true, that all evidence that tends to inculpаte an accused necessarily is prejudicial. This enumeration is without merit.
4. The enumeration of error relating to admission of testimony of the rape victim that her assailant had no faciаl hair is not only without merit, it is a mere statement of what occurred at trial, the discussion is in no way supрorted by citation of legal authority, and consequently it will be deemed to be abandoned under Rule 15 (c) (2) of this court. See
Pierce v. State,
5. Appellant argues that a proper chain of custody was not established as to identification linking latent fingerprints taken at the Cottage Shop to prints in the FBI filеs. There being no evidence of tampering, the chain of custody was adequately establishеd by the testimony of the FBI fingerprint specialist that the usual procedures were followed.
Holland v. State,
6. The еvidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to withstand appellant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal.
Bethay v. State,
Judgment affirmed.