Hudson v. State

The defendant did not show that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's erroneous use of the defendant's brother's criminal history when cross-examining the defendant.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a jury trial, Johnny Hudson was convicted of one count of theft by taking OCGA § 16-8-2. He appeals from that conviction and from the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court failed to conduct the proper balancing test or to make findings on the record regarding convictions to be used for impeachment purposes. Finding no error, we affirm.

Following a criminal conviction, the defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Sidner v. State, 304 Ga. App. 373, 374 696 SE2d 398 2010. So viewed, the evidence adduced at trial shows that on August 16, 2010, Michael Durden, the service manager at a Firestone tire store in Douglasville, noticed Hudson and another man, later identified as Hudson’s brother,1 loading tires from the store’s bin of used tires into their van. At this initial contact, Durden told the men to stop loading the tires, that the store employed a service to remove the tires, and that the store would get into trouble if anyone else removed the tires. The men then left. Approximately 30 minutes later, Durden noticed the two men back their van up to the store’s tire bins again, but they left when he told them to stop and informed them that they could go to jail if they did not leave the tires alone. Later that evening, when Durden was closing the store, he again noticed the two men driving near the back of the building, but he did not speak to them. Durden testified that no one had permission to take the tires and that the area where the tires were located had a sign posted stating “do not take tires.” Maurice Martin, the Firestone store manager, testified that there is a store policy against reselling or giving away tires to anyone other than a licensed recycler possessing a contract with the store.

Hudson v. State

The defendant did not show that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's erroneous use of the defendant's brother's criminal history when cross-examining the defendant.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report