*1 expiration term, original two-year then CCOA will be entitled months, days to utilize the remaining weeks and of the six months’ essence, term. if agreement, has the same meaning had expressed been as a years. lease two and one-half concur, except dissents.
Argued September
Whelchel, Carlton, Whelchel, & Whelchel James C. Kunes, Kunes & Kunes, G. Gerald for appellees.
Hill, majority say agreement was the as a same lease for two and one-half years. respectfully submit the majority has parties rewritten lease. The into years entered a lease for two right “with to extend for an option additional six months at the Buyer.” If parties had intended to enter into two and one-half year lease, (but not). could have done so did What was the effect the agreement parties? into by entered
Based on the Georgia upon by majority, cases relied would that, although find lease, no additional payment required by this option order to exercise buyer the. premises expiration two-year term given or have oral or expiration written notice before the of that term.
36578. THE STATE v. JOHNSON.
Bowles, Justice.
We certiorari consider the Johnson (1980) reversing a conviction for sale of marijuana because evidence of two subsequent sales of drugs from the same to the same officer was admitted into evidence.
1. We begin crime, with the rule that the trial of evidence criminal acts is inadmissible as it place the defendant’s character into evidence. See Code Ann. also, 38-202. See However, exceptions developed to the rule have so years over committed now there are times that purposes. for limited can be admitted two admissible “[B]efore satisfied. there must be evidence conditions must be crime. in fact the Second, similarity must be sufficient or connection between there the¿ *2 the former charged, proof crime and the offense State, v. 620, 621 (229 the latter. French SE2d 237 Ga. 410) (1976). identity of perpetrator Once the the accused as the he is on trial has separate offense and distinct from the one for which may be proven, testimony concerning crime scheme, identity, motive, purpose showing plan, admitted for the State, v. mind, Hamilton bent of course 239 of conduct. [Cits.]” (235 515) (1977).1 75 SE2d concede, some, exceptions suggested We do inadmissibility separate the rule of crimes. The swallowed only either which are admissible are those that are similar crime for which defendant tried. Crimes which are not similar or which are not should be connected to the crime for which defendant which are similar or excluded from evidence. Proof of crimes does tend to establish the closely charged the crime charged. If the Drug cases are no different from other cases. proven drug to be the of another sufficiently of that crime are similar or connected to facts facts of crime will be admissible charged, the crime mind, scheme, or course of prove identity, plan, bent of Appeals in the case Contrary finding by conduct. to the to the evidence of only probative at that the value to be attached bar criminal bent improperly was that it tended to State, (69 310) (1910)), Lee v. 413 SE we find App. mind 8 Ga. identity, as to the evidence of other crimes main in the case. issue “typical swearing match” as
We have here involved a case (1979). State, (256 127) described in Hart v. App. 149 Ga. SE2d drugs; him police officer testifies sold officer, says jury looking police “It me.” The wasn’t buying drugs would see an “in the business” of agent undercover many making drug that the officer one people. They might consider Lyles design, operandi, v. etc. See 1Similar crimes also show common modus (109 State, 215 Ga. SE2d buy from one individual could be mistaken about that individual However, was. when the officer testifies that he has made three drug buys frame, from the same person relatively within a narrow time jury could consider that the likelihood that the officer is mistaken that person’s identity about is greatly diminished.
Furthermore, in the case at one strategy defense was convey jury impression to the that the undercover officer tendency had a to “manufacture” his drug cases. The could consider that one case might be manufactured but the likelihood that successfully cases could be manufactured is remote.
There has among been some conflict the different divisions of about application admissibility of the rule of (264 State, evidence of other crimes. See Laws v. App. 153 Ga. 700) (1980); State, SE2d Anglin App. v. 151 Ga. Mayfield v. 150 Ga.
(1979); supra. Hart These necessarily turn on their facts and are in the analysis, judgment last calls. important It is remember, however, that evidence of other crimes is not limited to proving “plan, emphasized motive or scheme” as by the Court of Appeals in the bar but also “identity.”
2. The Court of Appeals also held the *3 sales inadmissible because those criminal in acts were not included the indictment and “to in allow them evidence on the trial of the December episode for probative whatever in may value have influencing a to convict is to use the same evidence to secure multiple 793, convictions for unrelated offenses.” 154 Ga. at 798. the evidence is not admitted for whatever value it in convincing jury a to convict. It is admitted for the limited purpose of showing identity, plan, scheme, bent of mind or course of conduct and the defendant is entitled to a to charge that effect upon request. Furthermore, the other crimes need not be listed the indictment. Defendant is not on trial for those crimes.2 This is a evidence, matter of proof, not pleading. concur, Jordan, J., P. except
and who dissent. Argued September 10, 29, 2In the case at the defendant could not have been on trial at the time for the other crimes as were county committed in a different or venue. Attorney, Beard, Allen, Steven L. Assistant E. District Richard Attorney, District Moye, Attorney, H. Assistant Slaton, Allen R. District
Lewis Tony Sparks, Attorney, Hight, amicus curiae. H. J. Robert District appellee. Chance, R. Kenneth
Hill, Identity and intent matters which the state every (except criminal those few crimes where criminal issue). identity negligence involved, an in those cases remains is and majority hold that of crimes committed logically which are similar prove identity tried The converse rule is admissible intent.1 by majority is that evidence of crimes committed found by logically similar nor the defendant which are neither connected (unless puts tried are inadmissible issue). silently treat all sale crimes as similar case). is, in this That the sale of one ounce of marijuana pool in a hall similar or sale of morphine Similarly, burglary a a of cocaine or boatload dockside. occupied single, burglar an house masked armed would be by group burglary car similar or connected to a railroad Moody wearing disguises. unarmed men overalls as But see 615) (1952), is one this leading subject. Bacon, on In state’s being this burglary for a which occurred December (November attempted burglaries Evidence of conviction 1950; 29, 1950; 15, 1951, and March as well as three 1946 December guilty pleas burglary) by was held inadmissible court. approval Reversing Appeals’ of the introduction such 263-264): (at pp. evidence, “[CJriminal intent this court held every negligence essential element crime where criminal majority opinion hold, [cite]; and to involved *4 always does, evidence of other offenses any logical intent, or be admissible to whether not there trial, connection between them and the case on would be to abolish exception general general rule, rule and to establish 38-415, provides contrary “... no Ann. which Code 1This rule prior and until or convictions shall be character admissible unless bad put have first issue.” the defendant shall any exception without thereto.” State, cite I
While the believe have overruled Bacon. fact, applied it. In I submit therefore not dissent. Presiding joins am authorized to state that Justice Jordan
this dissent. NAKIS CROSS. Chief Justice.
Undercofler, appeal This involves interpretation of restrictive covenants Dogwood in the County. Estates subdivision in DeKalb Barbara Cross sought enjoin Nakis, her neighbor, Betty Ann maintaining an aluminum backyard, tool shed her claiming such a structure is forbidden the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. The trial interlocutory court injunction and Mrs. Nakis appeals. We reverse. covenants,
Restrictive prohibiting the unfettered use of one’s land, must be strictly v. Vickery, construed. Pritchett Wiggins v. Young, (1950). Applying case, this principle to this that such clear prohibited. structures are not While paragraph one restricts land use a single family residential dwelling garage or carport, paragraph three refers to house, the set back garage restrictions of permitted “or other accessory building.” Paragraph six disallows temporary structures used as residences.1 these Construing cov- enants in whole, the context of the contract as a we do find that an aluminum tool shed is forbidden. reversed. All the Justices concur.
Submitted October
Harvey Clein, A. for appellant. & Whaley, Peek J. Peek, Jr., Corbett for appellee. 1“No temporary structure character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, outbuilding any shall be used on lot time as a residence either temporarily permanently.”