Weems v. State

The trial court did not err in admitting the investigator's testimony that two persons approached the residence during the search and asked for ' "Shad" ' or ' "Shod," ' since the statements regarding the defendant's apparent nickname were verbal acts not introduced for their truth.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The jury convicted Rashaid Weems of trafficking in cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the trial court denied his motion for new trial. On appeal, Weems contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of previous drug sales; admitting a receipt with Weems’s name on it that officers found in the residence they searched; and allowing testimony from an investigator that several individuals approached the residence being searched and asked for Weems by his alleged nickname. Weems further contends that the trial court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to suspend or probate his mandatory five-year sentence on the firearm conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. Following a criminal conviction, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Jones v. State , 289 Ga. App. 219 656 SE2d 556 2008. Construed in this manner, the evidence showed that on September 10, 2004, an investigator assigned to the narcotics unit of the City of Atlanta Police Department drove past a private residence located in Fulton County. Weems was standing in the front yard of the residence along with two other individuals. The investigator, who was in plain clothes and was driving an unmarked vehicle, turned his vehicle around and drove back to the residence. Weems then approached the investigator’s vehicle, offered “20 for 10,”1 and held out his hand showing the investigator what appeared to be several hits of crack cocaine. The investigator declined the offer and drove off.

The investigator parked his vehicle a short distance away where he could still monitor the residence. According to the investigator, “a couple more vehicles” drove up to the residence, and Weems “approached those vehicles and appeared to make hand-to-hand transactions with the occupants of the vehicles.”

Weems v. State

The trial court did not err in admitting the investigator's testimony that two persons approached the residence during the search and asked for ' "Shad" ' or ' "Shod," ' since the statements regarding the defendant's apparent nickname were verbal acts not introduced for their truth.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report