Three criminal convictions were were reversed in the past week. One involved the sufficiency of evidence for items pawned at a pawn shop. One involved the failure to establish venue. The other, and perhaps biggest reversal, involved the erroneous admission of similar transactions evidence.
Smith v. State, A08A0751, Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict for Theft by Receiving
The victim had speakers stolen from his boat while it was moored to a dock on September 16. Weeks later, the victim's brother finds speakers for sale at a pawn shop. The victim is called and identifies the speakers as his. The shop owner pulls his records and identifies Smith as the person who pawned the speakers. on October 3. Smith went to trial and testified that he bought the speakers at a flea market and later pawned them to get gas money for his commute. The trial judge took the motion for directed verdict under advisement. He later ruled against the defendant on a post-trial JNOV. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, reasoning that there was nothing about the speakers that should have alerted Smith that they were stolen. Smith did not try to conceal his identity when he pawned the speakers, and he stuck to his story that he bought them at a flea market.
Bell v. State, A08A0656, Insufficient Evidence of Venue
Bell was convicted of trafficking cocaine and misdemeanor obstruction. Law enforcement testified that the Bell sold drugs to a confidential informant in a Burger King parking lot in Glynn County. He then drove away. As he attempted to drive away, an officer placed his body in the car and held the steering wheel. Bell got out of the car and ran away before struggling with a second officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trafficking conviction because there was circumstantial evidence that the drugs were located in the parking lot in Glynn County. The obstruction conviction was reversed because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the struggle with the officer took place in Glynn County.
Usher v. State, A08A0419, Improper Similar Transactions Evidence
Usher was convicted of burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault with intent to rape a 91-year-old woman. Usher's sole defense at trial was mistaken identity. The victim's age and the fact that she did not have her glasses on when the robbery hapened was part of this defense. To establish identity, the State introduced two similar transactions. In each, Usher entered two homes near his home and took "portable items" belonging to person over the age of 50. The Court reverses, holding that identity evidence must be so similar that there is a "signature trait" common among all of the similar transactions and the accused offense. Because the facts of the similars were fairly generic and because neither involved violence, they were inadmissible to prove identity.
