Freeman v. State

Testimony that defendant mentioned his parole officer during hostage negotiations did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-76 because the testimony did not address the possibility of pardon, parole, or other clemency for defendant's crimes.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In a bifurcated trial, a jury found Herman Derek Freeman guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, fleeing or attempting to elude, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Following the jury’s verdict, he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Freeman appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, that testimony mentioning his parole violated OCGA § 17-8-76, and that a State’s witness violated the rule of sequestration. We affirm because the record demonstrates that the evidence was sufficient and that no violation of OCGA § 17-8-76 occurred. Freeman abandoned his remaining contention.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence shows that around 9:00 a.m. on February 1, 2000, Josh Parson arrived home from work and found Freeman and Freeman’s wife there. A disagreement appeared to be in progress. Mrs. Freeman was the daughter of Parson’s roommate, and the Freemans previously had lived in the home with Parson. Around noon, everyone left the house, and Parson and Freeman’s wife went together to the store. Upon returning home, Parson discovered Freeman hiding beside a bed. Freeman forced Parson at gunpoint to handcuff himself and lie on the floor, at which point, Freeman, still armed, fled the scene in Parson’s truck, taking his wife with him. Parson was able to release himself and call the police, who pursued Freeman. The chase ended in Alabama when the truck ran out of gas. After several hours of hostage negotiations, Freeman released his wife and turned himself in to police.

Freeman v. State

Testimony that defendant mentioned his parole officer during hostage negotiations did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-76 because the testimony did not address the possibility of pardon, parole, or other clemency for defendant's crimes.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report