536 S.E.2d 572 | Ga. Ct. App. | 2000
Elby Williams was convicted of one count of perjury. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Williams filed this appeal in which he asserts six enumerations of error. Having found no merit to any of the purported errors, we affirm.
Williams, a private investigator, was appointed to assist with the defense of William Marvin Gulley against whom the State planned to seek the death penalty. During a pretrial hearing, Gulley moved to exclude evidence that he had been charged with two other
Under oath, Williams declared that two officers from the East Point Police Department had rejected his request to provide certain information. According to Williams, while at the police department, Detectives William Gorman and Richard Joiner had refused to give him copies of the warrants and told him that he could not have copies of them.
PROSECUTOR: Sir, did you ever ask [Detective Gorman] for his file?
WILLIAMS: I asked him for information about the file. I asked him if he could at least give me warrants. You know, he said there were existing warrants and he refused to give me even the warrants.
Again, when counsel inquired: “What did he tell you regarding the warrants?”,
WILLIAMS: He told me there was [sic] existing warrants; that they had not been served. I asked him could I have copies of those warrants. He said no or whatever. He couldn’t get me copies of those warrants, but the other investigator who was in the room pulled it up on the computer to verify that there were warrants.
PROSECUTOR: Let me just ask you something. You said he said no or whatever. Which one did he say; did he say one or both or what?
WILLIAMS: He said I could not get copies of those warrants.
PROSECUTOR: That’s exactly what he said?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: You remember that clearly?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: Did you ask him could you get them at any other time?
WILLIAMS: No, sir. When he told me that, I didn’t see any*694 need in asking him any further questions.
Notwithstanding this testimony, the trial judge denied Gulley’s motion to exclude the East Point evidence that Gulley had committed a double murder of an elderly mother and daughter in East Point, only a week before the murder for which he was under indictment.
Based on his testimony in the Gulley case, Williams was indicted for perjury. Subject to redaction by the court, a certified transcript of Williams’ testimony in that trial was admitted into evidence.
Detectives Gorman and Joiner disputed Williams’ rendition of events. Joiner testified that he explicitly told Williams it would be “no problem” getting him a copy of the warrant. Joiner testified that both he and Gorman told Williams that he could have copies of the warrants and offered to accompany Williams to the Information Office where the warrants were kept. According to Joiner, Gorman informed Williams that the “case files and everything” were already in Albany. Joiner noted that Gorman expressed surprise that Williams “drove all the way up to East Point to see something that should already be in the hands of the prosecution and the defense teams.”
Gorman reiterated that he had advised Williams that he could have copies of the arrest warrant and also the police report but that they would have to walk downstairs to another office to get them. According to the detectives, when they went with Williams downstairs and walked past the warrant room, Williams never asked for the copies, telling them instead that he would check to see what information was already down in Albany. Gorman testified, “I did not refuse to give him anything from my file or the warrants or anything.”
Dougherty District Attorney Kenneth B. Hodges III, who prosecuted the Gulley case, testified that the East Point evidence was material and crucial to the sentencing, phase of the State’s case. In his view, it was vital for the jury to be informed that Gulley had attacked and murdered two elderly women (mother and daughter) in East Point before murdering an 81-year-old woman and raping her 60-year-old daughter in Dougherty County a week later.
1. Williams contends that the trial court erred in admitting a
2. Williams contends that the trial court erred in admitting State’s Exhibit 3B, a trial transcript, because it had been altered from the version certified by the clerk. While testifying, District Attorney Hodges highlighted certain portions of the transcript from the Gulley trial. When Williams objected to the highlighted sections going out with the jury, the court ruled that it would substitute a page for the one that was highlighted. Then when Williams objected to the admission of the transcript because the substitution of a page would vitiate the certification, the court stated that it would have the clerk certify the substituted page. This certification apparently did not occur.
Pretermitting whether any error occurred, Williams failed to prove the requisite harm needed for reversal.
3. Williams asserts that the trial court improperly expressed an opinion as to whether there was sufficient corroborating evidence of the similar transaction evidence.
Prior to trial, the court heard and granted the State’s motion to introduce similar transaction evidence which showed that on another occasion Williams had also testified untruthfully. Consistent with the court’s ruling, the district attorney disclosed to the jury that when Gulley’s defense team was attempting to obtain a continuance, ’’the substance of [Williams’] testimony changed numerous times throughout the course of the hearing.”
During the State’s closing argument, Williams objected to the prosecutor’s mention of that similar transaction evidence. He claimed that this testimony was, in fact, inadmissible since the evidence lacked sufficient corroboration. In overruling the defense objection, the trial court succinctly explained, “The objection is overruled. The
The remarks of a judge assigning a reason for a ruling do not constitute an expression of opinion or a comment on the evidence within the meaning of OCGA § 17-8-57.
4. Williams claims the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction for peijury. He argues that the State failed to offer evidence to corroborate the offense.
The applicable essential elements of the offense of perjury are: (1) knowingly and wilfully making a false statement, (2) material to an issue in question, (3) while under oath in a judicial proceeding.
5. Williams contends that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt because the State did not prove that the incident of purported peijury took place in Dougherty County.
Hodges testified that the Gulley trial had been conducted in precisely the same courtroom as the case against Williams was then being tried. He attested that Williams’ statements were made in that courtroom. The certified copy of the Gulley transcript entered into evidence was captioned “IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF DOUGHERTY, STATE OF GEORGIA.” When venue is not in dispute, as here, and no evidence indicates the crime may have occurred in a different county, slight evidence is sufficient to prove
6. Although Williams claims the trial court erred in denying an appeal bond, that issue is moot since we affirm his conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
Gulley v. State, 271 Ga. 337 (519 SE2d 655) (1999).
Id. at 339.
Id. at 339 (1).
See Fugitt v. State, 256 Ga. 292, 295 (1) (c) (348 SE2d 451) (1986); Hurston v. State, 194 Ga. App. 226 (390 SE2d 119) (1990).
Walker v. State, 187 Ga. App. 631, 633 (1) (371 SE2d 199) (1988).
Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5, 6 (3) (198 SE2d 387) (1973) (reversible error consists of error plus harm).
Norris v. State, 220 Ga. App. 87, 88 (1) (469 SE2d 214) (1996).
McGinnis v. State, 258 Ga. 673, 675 (4) (372 SE2d 804) (1988); Aman v. State, 223 Ga. App. 309, 310 (2) (477 SE2d 431) (1996).
See id.
OCGA § 16-10-70.
OCGA § 24-4-8; Dixon v. State, 172 Ga. App. 803, 804 (324 SE2d 780) (1984).
Id.
Joiner v. State, 231 Ga. App. 61, 63 (497 SE2d 642) (1998). Accord Graves v. State, 269 Ga. 772, 773 (1) (504 SE2d 679) (1998).
Hunter v. State, 219 Ga. App. 758, 759 (3) (467 SE2d 2) (1996).