Ananaba v. State

O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4's plain language requires the State to make available all physical evidence for inspection within a certain time period before trial, but it does not require the State to take the initiative and furnish the defense with copies of the physical evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Chikezie Solomon Ananaba guilty of theft by receiving stolen property and possession of a vehicle with an altered Vehicle Identification Number VIN. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the State’s reasons for striking three African American venire members from the jury were not racially neutral and thus in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 106 SCt 1712; 90 LE2d 69 1986. He also argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial because of a discovery violation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the verdict. Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620 1 521 SE2d 663 1999. So viewed, the evidence at trial showed that a sergeant with the DeKalb County Police Department was investigating a large-scale investigation of “cloned” vehicles in 2009 and 2010. A cloned car is a stolen car that appears to be legal because its two public VINs—on the dash next to the windshield and on the driver’s door pillar—have been covered with the VIN of a car that is not stolen. In other words, someone creates stickers copying the VIN of a car registered elsewhere and pastes them over the visible VINs of a stolen car. The stolen car is then registered with the new VIN. A report on the history of the VIN would bring up two cars, and manufacturers never assign a VIN to more than one car. Manufacturers also place the VIN in a “confidential” location which can be ascertained by law enforcement, and newer cars embed the VIN in their computer systems.

Ananaba v. State

O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4's plain language requires the State to make available all physical evidence for inspection within a certain time period before trial, but it does not require the State to take the initiative and furnish the defense with copies of the physical evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report