Hood v. State

The defendant had waived any objection to a prosecution witness referring to defendant's prior release from federal prison, because defendant's counsel declined the trial court's offer to give curative instructions to the jury.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Fulton County jury found Eugene Hood guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a housing project1 and three counts of trafficking in cocaine.2 In a single enumeration of error, Hood argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial after the State impermissibly placed his character in evidence when a prosecution witness referred to Hood’s prior release from federal prison. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in favor of the verdict,3 the evidence shows that Detective Michael Hannan received information from a confidential informant and other individuals that a person known as “Butch,” who was later identified as Hood, was selling drugs. Detective Hannan set up a series of controlled buys, wherein Hood sold a mixture of cocaine in excess of 28 grams and with a purity of at least 10 percent to the confidential informant on July 7, 2004, July 29, 2004, and August 10, 2004.4

At trial, the State asked Detective Hannan how he ultimately determined that “Butch” was Hood, and Hannan replied that “he had received information that Butch had just recently got out of prison for a federal offense.” Defense counsel objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. At the conclusion of Hannan’s testimony, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, but offered to give a curative instruction. Defense counsel declined the offer, stating that, “We wouldn’t want to bring any more attention to it than what the court has already done. We do not want further mention. . . .”

Hood v. State

The defendant had waived any objection to a prosecution witness referring to defendant's prior release from federal prison, because defendant's counsel declined the trial court's offer to give curative instructions to the jury.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report