The jury convicted Mark Antonio Brinkley of several felony offenses arising out of a knife attack, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years, to serve 18 years in confinement. On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, Brinkley contends that the trial court erred by considering improper evidence of an alleged prior conviction in aggravation of punishment. Because the evidence in question was inadmissible under the best evidence rule, Brinkley’s sentence must be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Following a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Johnson v. State , 289 Ga. App. 206 656 SE2d 861 2008. So viewed, the evidence showed that Brinkley cut a deep gash across the victim’s abdomen using a knife with a 3.5 inch blade, stabbed the victim twice more, and then unsuccessfully pursued the victim after he fled into a nearby building. The victim was hospitalized, required stitches as the result of the stabbing, and had to undergo exploratory surgery to ensure that his internal organs had not been damaged. The attack resulted in scars visible on the victim’s abdomen and arm.
Based on this evidence, the jury convicted Brinkley of aggravated battery and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime.1 At the ensuing sentencing hearing, the state attempted to introduce evidence in aggravation of punishment that Brinkley had pled guilty to second degree murder in Baltimore, Maryland in 1990. The state called the assistant district attorney “ADA” from Maryland who handled the 1990 case, but the ADA did not testify that he recalled Brinkley pleading guilty. Nor did the state introduce a certified copy of the prior conviction. Instead, the state, over objection, had the ADA identify three exhibits allegedly relating to the Maryland case: an uncertified copy of the indictment; a document entitled “State’s Version of Offense” that had been prepared by the Maryland district attorney’s office “primarily for parole purposes so that . . . the parole authority would have information concerning the offense rather than just the title of the offense”; and a computer print-out of the purported case procedural history. The “State’s Version of Offense” contained a notation reflecting that the case had been resolved by guilty plea; similarly, the computer print-out contained an electronic entry reflecting that a guilty plea had been entered on January 22, 1990.
