Henderson v. State (1970)

As recognized in Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 75 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970), “the legislature used language in subsection (b) making the prosecution together of multiple charges mandatory where rules relating to venue permit and the crimes are known to the proper prosecuting officer.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-1-7 (b) is a “single venue” rule which expanded procedural due process in this state to bar multiple prosecutions only within the same jurisdiction.

"There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorney for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports. .'' Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 589 ( 238 SE2d 540 ); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

"There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorney for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the client. [Cits.]" Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559 ( 203 SE2d 221 ).

Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283 ( 161 SE2d 302 ); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

In Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 75 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) this court construed Code Ann. § 26-506 (b, c) of the 1968 Criminal Code.

The Lightnings next contend the trial court erred by refusing to give their requested charge number two, based upon Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 83-84 (a) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970), that *58 [o]ne who is assaulted by another need no longer stop and determine whether assault constitutes attempt to commit a felony upon him, or a mere misdemeanor upon him, but may use such force in defense of his person, as seems to him to be necessary, even though such force may be intended to…

Nations, 217 S.E.2d at 288 (quoting Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 , 179 S.E.2d 76, 84 (Ga.1970), vacated in part, 408 U.S. 938 , 92 S.Ct. 2868 , 33 L.Ed.2d 758 (1972) (death penalty)). *496 In Commonwealth v. Gee, 467 Pa. 123 , 354 A.2d 875 (1976), the defendant complained because the Commonwealth did not turn over “every test, every result, every interview sheet that was taken in connection with that polygraph test.” The material was exculpatory because it contained exculp…

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 81 (6) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970) [vacated in part on other grounds 408 U. S. 938 (92 SC 2868, 33 LE2d 758)]; Bailey v. State, 157 Ga. App. 222 (1) ( 276 SE2d 843 ) (1981).

His failure to do so waived any objection he may have had to the form of the indictment. [Cits.]” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 79 (4) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970).

The brother’s statement was part of the res gestae of the arrest, and “ ‘evidence as to the time when and the place where arrested, the manner of the arrest, how the accused was armed, and whether he resisted, and all the circumstances connected with the arrest, are proper matters to be submitted to the jury to be weighed by them for what they are worth.’ ” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 82 ( 179 SE2d 76 ), remanded for further proceedings as to sentence, 408 U. S. 938 , co…

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

(Cits.)’ Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Lynn v. State, 231 Ga. 559 ( 203 SE2d 221 ).” Nations v. State, 234 Ga. 709 ( 217 SE2d 287 ) (1975). 1 And, in this case, the fact that this witness did not identify the appellant until immediately prior to trial was divulged at trial.

It is also well established that there is no Georgia procedure requiring the district attorney to open his files to the accused, "nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the [accused].” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970); Stevens v. State, 242 Ga. 34 ( 247 SE2d 838 ) (1978); Nations v. State, 234 Ga. 709 ( 217 SE2d 287 ) (1975).

"There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorney for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the client ...” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970).

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970); Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396 ( 207 SE2d 30 ) (1974).

The state offered defendant "a brief recess” to peruse the exemplars as this was their "first opportunity.” Our Supreme Court held in Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 221 ( 215 SE2d 223 ), that "[t]here is no Georgia statute or rule of practice which allows discovery in criminal cases.” In Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ), the court stated: "There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorne…

It is not an abuse of discretion in the interest of justice for the judge to refuse a motion for severance of the trial of multiple charges where the crimes alleged were part of a continuous transaction conducted over a relatively short time, and ". . . from the nature of the entire transaction, it would be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also permitting evidence of the other . . .” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 79 SE2d 76 …

The judge may order the charges tried *642 separately but he is not required to do so if in his opinion the interests of justice will not be served thereby.” (Emphasis supplied.) Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 79 (5) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) and cits.; Trask v. State, 132 Ga. App. 645, 646 (4) ( 208 SE2d 591 ) and cits. 2.

A joinder of offenses is not erroneous where "[f]rom the nature of the entire transaction it would be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also permitting evidence of the other crimes to be introduced [and] they were all a part of one continuous transaction covering a period of [several] hours.” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 557 ( 216 SE2d 782 ).

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 82 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Wooten v. State, 224 Ga. 106 ( 160 SE2d 403 ). 3.

Lingerfelt v. State, 231 Ga. 354 ( 201 SE2d 445 ); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 79 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).” Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929, 930 ( 214 SE2d 365 ). 3.

In a case where "[f]rom the nature of the entire transaction it would be almost impossible to *558 present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also permitting evidence of the other crimes to be introduced since they were all part of one continuous transaction covering a period of [several] hours,” (Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Owens v. State, 233 Ga. 905 ) and "Two or more offenses . . . are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts …

As was stated by this court in Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ): "From the nature of the entire transaction it would be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also permitting evidence of the other crimes to be introduced since they were all a part of one continuous transaction covering a period of 18 to 20 hours.” Henderson v. State, p. 76, supra, also held: "The only test under the new Criminal Code is whether the inte…

Lingerfelt v. State, 231 Ga. 354 (201 SE2d 445);Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 79 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 83 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

With reference to discovery our Supreme Court stated in Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) that "There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the client. [Cits.]” See also Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 737 (12) ( 182 SE2d 779 ) a…

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 72 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 82 ( 179 SE2d 76 ), and citations.

Osbourne v. State, 128 Ga. App. 81 (4) ( 195 SE2d 662 ); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 78 ( 179 SE2d 76 ). 9.

"There is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorney for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and *881 investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the client.” Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730 (12) ( 182 SE2d 779 ). 2.

In Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) this court construed Code Ann. § 26-506 (b) (c) of the 1968 Criminal Code (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249 et seq.).

This court construed these provisions of the 1968 Act in Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) where it said: "Formerly the judge had a discretion to order separate trials, but his discretion was abused if the separate counts involved different species of felonies or crimes of a different nature requiring different kinds of evidence to prove guilt.

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 75-76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970).

See, e.g., Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 (3) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) and cits.

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 81 (6) ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970). 6.

See, Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970).

See Gilbert v. State, 65 Ga. 449, 450 , cited in Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 73 ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) (1970).

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 77 (2) ( 179 SE2d 76 ).

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 (1) ( 179 SE2d 76 ). (b) It was not error to sustain the state’s objection upon voir dire to the defense question as to whether a juror believed that a man was innocent until his guilt was proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 79 ( 179 SE2d 76 ), and cits. *357 6.

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 ( 179 SE2d 76 ) and Rautenstrauch v. State, 129 Ga. App. 381 ( 199 SE2d 613 ).

Compare Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 74 ( 179 SE2d 76 ). 3.

See, in this connection, Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76 ( 179 SE2d 76 ); Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730 ( 182 SE2d 779 ); Steele v. State, 227 Ga. 653 ( 182 SE2d 475 ).

See Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 (1) ( 179 SE2d 76 ), where, as here, the evidence to be submitted to the jury as to two separate offenses constituted a single transaction.