From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 3, 1978
246 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

55915.

SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 1978.

DECIDED JULY 3, 1978.

Armed robbery. Richmond Superior Court. Before Judge Fleming.

Saul, Blount Martin, Percy J. Blount, for appellant.

Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Stephen E. Curry, Steven L. Beard, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.


The defendant appeals his conviction for armed robbery. Held:

1. The victim's eyewitness identification of the defendant amply supported the verdict.

2. The testimony that the victim chose the defendant's photograph from a book containing numerous "mug shots" did not constitute inadmissible evidence of prior offenses. See Atcheson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 152 (2) ( 220 S.E.2d 483) (1975) and cits.

3. The contention that the pre-trial identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive was not raised in the trial court and may not now be raised on appeal. See e.g., Martin v. State, 141 Ga. App. 181 ( 233 S.E.2d 38) (1977). Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

SUBMITTED JUNE 5, 1978 — DECIDED JULY 3, 1978.


Summaries of

Moore v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 3, 1978
246 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Moore v. State

Case Details

Full title:MOORE v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jul 3, 1978

Citations

246 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
246 S.E.2d 740

Citing Cases

Griffin v. State

Since defendant failed to raise an objection at trial to such identification, he "will not be heard to…

Cochran v. State

First, the answer of the witness was not responsive to the question asked. See Johnson v. State, 144 Ga. App.…