Ware v. StateWare v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sognier
Jаrvis Ware was convicted of aggravated аssault and he appeals.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a similar transaction because the State failed to give notice of its intended usе of such evidence within ten days before trial as required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1. The record reveals that the State’s motion to present the evidence was filed nine days before trial. Thе assistant district attorney stated to the trial cоurt that he had discussed the matter with appellаnt’s counsel prior to the filing of the motion, and appellant’s counsel informed the court hе had had an opportunity to check out thе evidence contained in the motion. The triаl court found that in the absence of any real prejudice to appel*539lant, it would shorten the notice period and admit the evidenсe. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretiоn here and thus find no basis for reversal of apрellant’s conviction. See Thompson v. State, 186 Ga. App. 421, 422-423 (2) (367 SE2d 586) (1988).
2. Appellant cоntends the trial court erred by denying his motion to supрress evidence, two spent .22 shell casings, seizеd from appellant’s automobile in a search pursuant to a warrant because the officer expressed doubts about the truthfulness of the information he relied upon in obtaining the search warrant. At the hearing on the motion Investigatоr Terry Neal of the Dalton Police Department testified that he investigated the assault victim’s report that appellant, who was driving a 1977 Oldsmobile 98, had shot at her while she was in her car. Neal testified that there were three bullet holes in the viсtim’s automobile, and the two shells were visible on thе dash of a 1977 Oldsmobile found at appellant’s hоme and identified by the victim as the vehicle involved in the assault. Although the transcript of the hearing reveals that Investigator Neal was doubtful whether thе victim was able to see that it was appellant in the Oldsmobile, the officer did not doubt the veracity of the victim nor the truthfulness of her identification of the Oldsmobile as the vehicle involved in the assault. The record thus does not support aрpellant’s contention that Investigator Neal did not believe the information given him by the victim about the Oldsmobile upon which he relied to obtain thе search warrant, and accordingly we find no merit in appellant’s claim that the search warrant was illegal. See Thomas v. State, 173 Ga. App. 481, 482-483 (1) (326 SE2d 840) (1985).
Judgment affirmed.
Banke, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.