TERRY DONALD GREENE v. THE STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., MCMILLIAN and GOSS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules April 16, 2019 NOT TO BE OFFICIALLY REPORTED In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A19A0176. GREENE v. THE STATE. GS-005C GOSS, Judge. On appeal from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine and marijuana, Terry Greene argues that the trial court erred when it admitted the portion of Greene’s videotaped interview during which a police officer stated that he had “been hearing [Greene’s] name a bit” before the incidents leading to his arrest. We find no error and affirm. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence.” (Citation omitted.) Reese v. State, 270 Ga. App. 522, 523 (607 SE2d 165) (2004). We neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation and emphasis omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Thus viewed in favor of the verdict, the record shows that on March 14, 2013, police officers knocked on the door of a Trion motel room occupied by Greene, a woman, and an infant. The officers asked for and received Greene’s consent to search the room, and found methamphetamine residue on a spoon inside a sunglasses case and the remains of a marijuana cigarette on the bedside table. Greene acknowledged that these were his items and was arrested. At trial, Greene and the State agreed that some inadmissible character evidence contained in his videotaped statement to police, including his admissions as to a conspiracy to steal a car and prior drug activity, would be muted. Over Greene’s objection, that portion of the statement containing the investigator’s comment that he had “been hearing [Greene’s] name a little bit,” as a result of which police had “[come] to [his] place,” was not muted. After a jury found Greene guilty of possession of methamphetamine and less than an ounce of marijuana, he was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years to serve. His motion for new trial was denied. 2 1. The evidence outlined above was sufficient to sustain Greene’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine and less than an ounce of marijuana. See OCGA § 16-13-30 (a), (j) (1) (defining the crimes of possession of methamphetamine and less than one ounce of marijuana); Jackson, supra. 2. Although Greene asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the portion of the videotaped statement in which the investigator said that he had “been hearing [Greene’s] name a little bit,” this Court has often held that such testimony, which indicates only “general familiarity” with a defendant, “does not impermissibly place that defendant’s character at issue” because such familiarity “does not necessarily suggest prior criminal conduct.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Moore v. State, 310 Ga. App. 106, 108 (1) (712 SE2d 126) (2011). See also Rucker v. State, 304 Ga. App. 184, 189 (2) (b) (iii) (695 SE2d 711) (2010); Jones v. State, 279 Ga. App. 139, 140 (2) (a), (c) (630 SE2d 643) (2006) (defendant’s character was not impermissibly placed in evidence by detective’s testimony as to knowing defendant by a gang nickname and running criminal background checks on defendant and an associate). It follows that the court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed this portion of the statement to be heard by the jury. Moore, 310 Ga. App. at 108 (1). Judgment affirmed. McFadden, P. J., and McMillian, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
