Williams v. State, 449 S.E.2d 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. State, 449 S.E.2d 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. State (gactapp, 1998-04-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
App. Div. 1995) (defendant charged with Wiling infant; court erred in admitting evidence of accused’s assault of infant’s mother a week earlier). 26 See People v. Henson, 304 NE2d 358, 363 (N.Y. 1973) (evidence of previous abuse negates the defense of accident and “is especially warranted in cases . . . where the crime charged has occurred in the privacy of the home and the facts are not easily unraveled”). 27 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Herring v. State, 224 Ga. App. 809, 814 (4) ( 481 SE2d 842 ) (1997); Haygood v. State, 154 Ga. App. 633 (1) ( 269 SE2d 480 ) (1980). 28 Supra…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Belt v. State (5×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
In cases typified by Bell v. State, 219 Ga.App. 553, 554 (2), 466 S.E.2d 68 (1995) and Sloan v. State, 214 Ga.App. 784, 785-786 (2), 449 S.E.2d 328 (1994), the general rule was applied.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Even if these claims had been preserved for appellate review, there is no merit to Parker’s claim that admission of prior difficulties evidence is limited to murder cases (Sloan v. State, 214 Ga. App. 784, 785 ( 449 SE2d 328 ) (1994)), and no merit to the claim that the requirements of Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 ( 409 SE2d 649 ) (1991), were not complied with in the introduction of prior difficulties and similar transactions evidence.
discussed Cited "see" Vasser v. State
Ga. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sloan v. State, 214 Ga. App. 784 (1) ( 449 SE2d 328 ) (1994) (evidence of prior difficulties admissible to show bent of mind, intent, and course of conduct between accused and victim or victim’s family).
cited Cited "see" Sloan v. Sanders
Ga. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sloan, 214 Ga. App. at 785-786 .
cited Cited "see" Prickett v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sloan v. State, 214 Ga. App. 784, 785-786 (2) ( 449 SE2d 328 ) (1994).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brewer v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Sloan v. State, 214 Ga. App. 784, 786 (3) ( 449 SE2d 328 ). 6.
WILLIAMS
v.
State
A94A1589.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 5, 1994.
449 S.E.2d 333
Jennifer B. Mann, for appellant., J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Robert M. Coker, Thomas S. Clegg, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
McMurray.
Published
McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense of murder (while in the commission of an aggravated assault) (Count 1), possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (murder alleged in Count 1) (Count 2) and possession of a firearm while on probation (as a first offender) for committing burglary (Count 3). This appeal followed the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial. Held:

In his sole enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion “to bifurcate the possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer count from the other unrelated counts in the indictment.”

Even though defendant was indicted in Count 1 for murder (while in the commission of an aggravated assault), “[t]he possession [of a firearm while on probation (as a first offender) for committing burglary] charge was material to the felony murder charge since it could have served as the underlying felony for a felony murder conviction. Williams v. State, 263 Ga. 135 (429 SE2d 512) (1993); Cauley v. State, 260 Ga. 324, 325 (1) (393 SE2d 246) (1990). See also Iona v. State, 260 Ga. 83, 85 (4) (389 SE2d 754) (1990). Thus, the trial court was not required to bifurcate the charges as [defendant] requested. Williams v. State, supra; Cauley v. State, supra; see also Brown v. State, 263 Ga. 89, 90 (2) (428 SE2d 78) (1993).” (Emphasis supplied.) Robinson v. State, 263 Ga. 424, 425 (2) (a) (435 SE2d 207). See Harris v. State, 263 Ga. 526, 527 (3) (435 SE2d 669). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defendant’s motion to bifurcate. Appling v. State, 256 Ga. 36, 37 (1) (343 SE2d 684) (1986).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope, C. J., and Smith, J., concur.