Dennard v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of two prior offenses as similar transactions, as all three incidents involved the use of a gun while forcibly attempting to steal property from a lone victim, and one of the prior offenses, like the crime charged, occurred in a parking lot.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Cedric Dennard appeals from his conviction for criminal attempt to commit armed robbery. He claims that the trial court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence, allowing hearsay testimony and failing to grant immunity to a witness. Finding no error, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict, Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, the evidence shows that Dennard arranged to meet Yi Hsuan Huang in a shopping mall to sell four iPhones to Huang for $850. The two met at the mall, and Dennard told Huang that the phones were in his truck. They then went to the parking lot, where Dennard pulled out a gun and demanded Huang’s money. Huang, who had $900 with him, said he would give Dennard the money if he stopped pointing the gun at him. Dennard put the gun in his pocket, and a struggle ensued. Dennard attempted to run away, but was apprehended by a security officer.

1. Dennard contends that the trial court erred by permitting the state to introduce evidence of two prior offenses because they are not sufficiently similar to the current attempted armed robbery. We disagree. Evidence that a defendant has committed an independent offense or bad act is admissible if the State shows and the trial court rules that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offenses or acts and the crime charged so proof of the former tends to prove the latter. When considering the admissibility of similar transaction evidence, the proper focus is on the similarities, not the differences, between the separate crime and the crime in question. We will uphold the trial court’s decision to admit a similar transaction unless it is an abuse of discretion. Citation and punctuation omitted. Avila v. State , 289 Ga. 409, 411 2 711 SE2d 706 2011.

Dennard v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report