Thе appellant, Anthony F. Moret, III, is an inmate at the Georgiа State Prison in Reidsville. While on a work detail, he killed another inmate, Charles Finney, by striking him on the head twice with an ax. The aрpellant was charged with murder, and he chose to represent himself at trial. He was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He now appeals.
1. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury in finding the aрpellant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
Several eyewitnesses, consisting of both inmates аnd prison guards, testified that they saw the appellant walk up behind the victim and strike him on the head with an ax, once while the victim was standing and again after he had fallen down. There was testimony that there was animosity between the appеllant and the victim, because the appellant is a Muslim аnd the victim was anti-Muslim. One of the prison guards testified that, as he was taking the appellant away after he had killed the victim, the appellant stated that, "the sorry son of a bitch needed killing.”
2. The trial judge curtailed the appellant’s exаmination of a witness, when the appellant began examining the witness concerning matters which were immaterial. The trial judge curtailed the appellant’s examination of аnother witness, when the appellant persisted in attemрting to have this witness retract testimony which he had given unequivoсally. In addition, the trial judge interrupted the appellant’s closing argument to the jury, because the appellant was arguing matters not in evidence.
In doing these things, the trial judge was acting within his inherent power to supervise the course of thе trial, and the trial judge did not express or intimate an opiniоn to the jury in violation of Code § 81-1104.
3. The trial judge did not err in admitting oral testimony at the presentence hearing concеrning the armed-robbery sentence which the appellant is presently serving.
Admission of the evidence of this prior criminal conviction was proper under Code Ann. § 27-2503 (a), in that the state gave the appellant written notice prior to trial that his armed robbery conviction would be offered in evidence at the presentence hearing if he was convicted of the murder. The appellant complains that evidence of this conviction was admitted through the testimony of the prosecuting attorney, rather than through cеrtified copies of the conviction.
The requirement that prior convictiоns be proved by certified copies thereof is reаlly an application of the "best evidence rule.” See Agnor’s Ga. Evidence 63, § 5-8 (1976). The "best evidence rule” may be waived. Id. Here, the appellant did not object to the introduction of this oral testimony concerning his prior conviсtion. Therefore, he has waived the objection that this was not the best evidence thereof. See
Moore v. State,
Judgment affirmed.