Peck v. StatePeck v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Andrews
Timothy Peck appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of theft by taking a truck from the lot of a trucking comрany, criminal damage to property, driving under the influence, driving while license suspended, and obstruction of officеrs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The evidence at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, was аs follows. Peck’s ex-wife, Kelly Cole, testified that she called 911 on the night the truck was stolen and said that Peck had been drinking and threatened to steal a truck and come after her. Earlier, Cole had taken Peck to a convеnience store and, instead of waiting for Peck to come out, left him there.
*600 At trial, however, Cole said she lied about Peck stealing a truck because she thought the police would not come if she simply said she was afraid оf him.
An officer from the Sheriff’s Department testified that when he responded to Cole’s 911 call, she told him that Peck was gоing to go down to Simpson Trucking Company and “get a truck.” While he was at Cole’s house, the officer got a call аbout another disturbance, and when he went to investigate, found a Simpson Trucking Company truck on the side of the road. The truck had some damage to the front end, and another officer said that when he pulled up beside the truck, he saw someone run away. Officers also confirmed that there was a hole in the fence at Simpson Trucking and it аppeared that a truck was missing from the lot. The chain link fence around the trucking company lot had a holе in it consistent with someone driving a truck through it, and there were parts that appeared to have broken off sоme vehicle lying by the hole in the fence.
When officers searched the area around the truck, they found Peck running through the woods and arrested him. Peck was about 100 yards from the truck when officers caught him. Officers testified that Peck hаd a strong odor of alcohol about him.
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts on the chargеs of theft by taking, criminal damage to property, driving while license suspended, and obstruction of officers.
On apрeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the [dеfendant] no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover [,] an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) [(1979)]. Howard v. State, 261 Ga. 251, 252 (403 SE2d 204) [(1991)]; King v. State, 213 Ga. App. 268, 269 (444 SE2d 381) [(1994)].
Dolphus v. State, 218 Ga. App. 565, 566 (462 SE2d 453) (1995).
But, there was insufficient evidence to convict Peck of DUI. Peck was charged with driving under the influence undеr
2. Next, Peck contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after an officer impermissibly placed his character into evidence. This incident оccurred when the prosecutor asked an officer if there was anything peculiar about Peck’s appearance or mannerisms. The officer replied, “I mean, he was very dirty, had a lot of dirt and mud on him. He was saying a lоt of stuff that he was — he was doped up, he’d been taking drugs.” Defense counsel objected to this statement saying the State had not produced evidence of this statement before trial. The prosecutor replied that the testimony was a surprise to him also and he did not intend to elicit that response.
The court denied the motion for mistrial and asked defense counsel if there was anything further he wanted to say. At that point, counsel withdrew his request to have the jury instructed to disregard the statement or to have it stricken from the record. Nevertheless, the judge offered to givе the jury curative instructions to the effect that any statements made by the deputy about what Peck said to him that night were not evidence and should be “stricken not only from the record but stricken from their mind.” Counsel again rejected any curative instructions.
Where a witness for the State in a criminal case voluntarily injects into the trial improper and prejudicial matter, on motion for a mistrial based thereon, whether mistrial must be granted as the only corrective mеasure or whether the prejudicial effect can be corrected by withdrawing testimony from the consideratiоn of the jury under proper instructions, is a matter ordinarily in the discretion of the trial court.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Crawford v. State, 256 Ga. 585, 587 (2) (351 SE2d 199) (1987).
Here, defense counsеl never requested that the trial court give any curative instructions to the jury regarding this testimony. “Where the objection to the prejudicial matter is sustained, . . . the court has no duty to rebuke counsel or give curative instructions unless specifically requested by the defendant.” Woodham v. State, 263 Ga. 580 (1) (a) (439 SE2d 471) (1993). Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny Peck’s motiоn for *602 mistrial because this testimony was not so prejudicial as to warrant the declaration of a mistrial. Id. at 581 (1) (b).
3. Peck also claims the trial court erred in giving the jury charge on DUI. In light of our reversal of the conviction on the DUI count, we need not address this enumeration.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Ruffin and Ellington, JJ., concur.