Valdez v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse a prospective juror on the basis that his son was a state witness because the juror testified that he could listen to the evidence and be impartial in deciding the case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Carlos Valdez was convicted of trafficking in cocaine OCGA § 16-13-31 a 1. The trial court denied Valdez’s motion for new trial, as amended. On appeal, Valdez contends that i the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and ii the trial court abused its discretion in failing to excuse a prospective juror. We discern no error and affirm. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant is no longer entitled to a presumption of innocence. We neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only the sufficiency of the evidence in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Citation omitted. Martinez v. State , 303 Ga. App. 71 1 692 SE2d 737 2010. “As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Navarro v. State , 293 Ga. App. 329 667 SE2d 125 2008. So viewed, the trial evidence shows that in December 2007, deputies in the Multi-Agency Narcotics Squad “MANS” of the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office received information that a confidential informant was willing to assist in an undercover operation to purchase an ounce of cocaine. The deputies met with the informant, who made arrangements to meet the drug suspects at a designated location. The deputies established an action plan and wired the principal agent with a concealed electronic transmitting device. Thereafter, the deputies traveled to the designated location.

Upon arriving, the deputies observed a vehicle parked at the location. Valdez was the driver of the vehicle and his co-defendant, Honorato Ortiz-Hernandez, occupied the back passenger seat. Valdez’s other co-defendant, Eduardo Garcia Castaneda, stood outside the vehicle and used his cell phone to communicate with the informant and the principal agent.

Valdez v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse a prospective juror on the basis that his son was a state witness because the juror testified that he could listen to the evidence and be impartial in deciding the case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report