Mika v. State

The trial court's error in admitting defendant's statement which an officer obtained in violation of his right to counsel was harmless, since defendant's response to the officer was merely cumulative of other evidence and was not inconsistent with his defense.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Richard P. Mika was found guilty by a jury of selling cocaine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Finding no reversible error in the enumerations raised on appeal, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

1. The State produced eyewitness testimony from three witnesses who saw Mika sell the cocaine. Two police officers working undercover in a nightclub testified that from a distance of about seven yards they saw Mika accept money from Christopher Cash and give Cash a plastic bag containing a white powder that appeared to be cocaine. During the sale, one of the officers walked up directly behind Cash, closely observed the apparent cocaine in Cash’s hand, and watched Cash place the apparent cocaine in his pocket. Shortly thereafter, Cash was taken by the officers outside the nightclub where he consented to a search of his person. The officers found the bag of apparent cocaine in Cash’s pocket. Tests conducted by the Georgia State Crime Lab confirmed that the substance in the bag was cocaine. Cash, who was charged as a co-defendant with possession of cocaine and pled guilty prior to trial, testified for the State that Mika sold him the cocaine at the nightclub in exchange for two 20 dollar bills. Cash and Mika were arrested at the nightclub, and at least two 20 dollar bills were found in Mika’s possession in a search of his person incident to the arrest. Although Mika did not testify, the defense asserted on his behalf at trial was that he did not sell the cocaine, and that Cash gave him money to buy drinks, not to buy cocaine.

Mika v. State

The trial court's error in admitting defendant's statement which an officer obtained in violation of his right to counsel was harmless, since defendant's response to the officer was merely cumulative of other evidence and was not inconsistent with his defense.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report