 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barrow v. State9/16/2004
aine is over $100 per gram and that the amount of cocaine found by the officers was consistent with distribution of the drug, rather than personal use. Such evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that Barrow possessed the cocaine with intent to distribute. This is particularly true here, where the police recovered 24.91 grams of cocaine, but the evidence shows that Barrow threw away blocks of suspected cocaine that the officers were unable to recover.
2. Barrow also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Specifically, Barrow argues that Officer Freeman had no basis for initiating a traffic stop. We disagree.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the lower court's judgment, and we accept that court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. "Furthermore, on appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we may consider the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress, as well as that adduced during trial."
So viewed, the evidence establishes that, after Williams passed Officer Freeman's patrol car, he braked so suddenly that the front of his car dipped, which made Officer Freeman suspect Williams of driving under the influence . And Officer Freeman testified that when he pulled behind Williams, Williams changed lanes without signaling. According to Officer Freeman, traffic was "medium" at the time, and a turn signal was needed for safety. Although failing to utilize a turn signal does not automatically provide a basis for stopping a motorist, an officer may pull over a motorist for failing to signal when traffic conditions require the use of such signal. Under the circumstances of this case, Officer Freeman was authorized to initiate a traffic stop, and the trial court did not err in denying Barrow's motion to suppress.
3. On the morning of trial, the prosecutor informed Barrow's attorney that he had a videotape from Officer Amerman's patrol car that showed Officer Williams chasing the Mustang and the plastic bags flying from the car window. Barrow moved to exclude the videotape, arguing that because he opted into reciprocal discovery, the State was required to provide it sooner. In the alternative, Barrow requested a continuance, arguing that he needed time "to deal with tape."
The prosecutor responded that he was unaware of the tape's existence until that morning, that he brought it to the attorney's attention as soon as he learned of it, and that he played the video for Barrow's counsel. The prosecutor further stated that the tape simply reflected what was set forth in the incident report, and thus Barrow was not harmed by the introduction of new evidence. The trial court agreed with the prosecutor and denied Barrow's motion. Barrow challenges this ruling on appeal.
When the State fails to timely provide evidence pursuant to a reciprocal discovery request, the trial court may order the State to permit examination of the evidence, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the State from tendering the evidence. The trial court retains discretion in determining what remedy, if any, is required to ensure a fair trial. Here, the record shows that the prosecutor showed the video to the defense upon learning of its existence. And the video merely confirmed the details of the police report. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tape.
4. Barrow argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to bolster its witnesses. Barrow points to Officer Amerman's testimony, in which he said, "Officer Fre
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|