Summary
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.
Text
Jack E. Carney, Jr., for appellant.
The defendant appeals his conviction after a bench trial of all six counts of an indictment. He was incarcerated at the Georgia State Prison and the indictment related to two incidents there. The first involved an altercation with a prison guard on February 25, 1983, and is the subject of three counts of the indictment, each involving mutiny in a penal institution. The second occurred on July 7, 1983, and resulted in the remaining counts of the indictment for aggravated assault, mutiny and unauthorized possession of a weapon by an inmate.
The February 25 incident took place when the defendant refused to return to his cell on the hospital floor. During the struggle with several correctional officers the defendant bit one (count four) and kicked two others (counts five and six). The July 7 attack began after defendant refused to permit a correctional officer to remove handcuffs. According to the officer defendant removed a "knife" from his bunk (count three), charged the officer and stabbed him three times (count one). A guard who came to the rescue was bitten (count two).
1. (a) The defendant contends that the knife introduced by the state was illegally admitted since it was not established to be the one allegedly used by him in the first count of aggravated assault. Defendant was in area 173 at the time. The knife introduced had "MI" scratched on it. Defendant contends that this was a knife taken from him while he was in cell block MI and not the weapon used in the assault on the guard.
Although the state failed to establish a chain of custody, the guard who was stabbed positively identified the weapon. "Unlike fungible items, distinct physical objects which can be identified upon mere observation require no custodial proof for their admission." Marsh v. State,
It was not error to admit the knife into evidence. Rutledge v. State,
(b) The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find proof of defendant's guilt of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Regarding the four counts of prison mutiny (counts 2, 4, 5 and 6), defendant urges there was "no serious bodily injury" evidenced, as required by our code.
Defendant misconstrues the code. OCGA
3. Defendant contends he could not be convicted of unauthorized possession of a weapon by an inmate because this charge was a lesser included offense of aggravated assault.
OCGA
OCGA
Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, for appellee.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HARPER v. THE STATE., 251 Ga. 183, 304 S.E.2.d 693 (1983)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - STEPHENS v. HOPPER., 241 Ga. 596, 247 S.E.2.d 92
- Supreme Court of Georgia - NORWOOD v. THE STATE., 238 Ga. 199, 232 S.E.2.d 70
- Georgia Court Of Appeals - Marsh v. The State (Two Cases)., 151 Ga. App. 637, 260 S.E.2d 761 (1979)
- Georgia Court Of Appeals - Starks v. The State., 113 Ga. App. 780, 149 S.E.2d 841 (1966)
See other documents that cite the same legislation