Court Opinion

ID: 9604813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:26:58.384264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:23.270822
License: Public Domain

Carley, Presiding Judge.
After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of burglary. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.
1. After a pre-trial hearing, the trial court ruled that four of appellant’s prior burglary convictions would be admissible as similar transactions. Thereafter, appellant sought to voir dire the potential jurors concerning what their reaction would be to the State’s introduction of the prior burglary convictions. The trial court’s refusal to allow appellant to do so is enumerated as error.
OCGA § 15-12-133 “outlines the permissible scope of voir dire. [Cit.] Voir dire should allow both parties an opportunity to ascertain the ability of the prospective jurors to decide the case on its merits, with objectivity and freedom from bias and prior inclination. [Cit.] However, no question should require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the case. [Cit.] Since the distinction between questions which ask jurors how they would decide issues of a case if and when such issues are presented and questions which merely inquire whether jurors can start the case without bias or prior inclination is not always crystal clear, the ‘control of the voir dire examination is vested in the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with by this court unless the record clearly *660shows an abuse of that discretion.’ [Cit.] Hypothetical voir dire questions are not per se improper, [cit.], but a trial judge should be cautious in allowing counsel to propound questions which ask the juror to assume that certain facts will be proven. Such questions tend to improperly influence jurors. [Cit.]” Waters v. State, 248 Ga. 355, 363 (3) (283 SE2d 238) (1981).
“[N] either the defendant nor the [S]tate has the right simply to outline the evidence and then ask a prospective juror his opinion of that evidence.” Blankenship v. State, 258 Ga. 43, 45 (6) (365 SE2d 265) (1988). See also Jenkins v. State, 157 Ga. App. 310, 313 (3) (277 SE2d 304) (1981) (no abuse of discretion where inquiry “could only be answered in the light of the evidence yet to be presented at trial”). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow appellant, in effect, to question the prospective jurors regarding their opinions as to evidence that the trial court had ruled to be admissible at trial. Likewise, there was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to allow appellant to question the prospective jurors whether they would follow the trial court’s limiting instructions as to their consideration of that evidence. Appellant “was not entitled to ask whether the jury would be able to follow the instructions of the trial court ([cit.]). . . .” Head v. State, 160 Ga. App. 4, 6 (6) (285 SE2d 735) (1981). See also Wallace v. State, 248 Ga. 255, 259 (2) (282 SE2d 325) (1981); Smith v. State, 238 Ga. 146, 149 (5) (231 SE2d 757) (1977).
2. Appellant never objected to the admission of his prior convictions on the ground that the State had failed to show that they were sufficiently “similar” to the crime with which he was charged in the instant case. Hunter v. State, 202 Ga. App. 195, 197 (3) (413 SE2d 526) (1991). Likewise, appellant never objected to timing of the State’s introduction of the prior convictions. Compare Gilstrap v. State, 261 Ga. 798 (1) (410 SE2d 423) (1991). Instead, appellant objected only that two of his four prior convictions, having occurred 11 years before, were so “remote” as to be more prejudicial than relevant.
“While lapse of time is an important factor to be weighed when considering the admissibility of evidence of independent crimes, it is not wholly determinative. [Cit.] This is especially true where there are similar . . . intervening crimes which occur periodically over a span of time as is the case here.” Chastain v. State, 260 Ga. 789, 791 (3) (400 SE2d 329) (1991). Appellant’s incarceration pursuant to the eight-year-old and four-year-old convictions, the admission of which has not been challenged on appeal, circumscribed his “ability to commit similar offenses during much of the [11]-year period. [Cit.]” Anderson v. State, 183 Ga. App. 669, 671 (1) (359 SE2d 688) (1987). There was no error in the admission of appellant’s 11-year-old convic*661tions over the objection that they were too “remote.” See Gilstrap v. State, supra at 799 (lb) (holding that 31 years is too remote, but recognizing that 11 years is not).
3. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court’s giving of the following charge: “The presence of valuables inside the premises can support an inference of intent to commit a theft. Whether or not you draw such an inference is left up tp you.”
This “instruction states a legally correct principle of the law and there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to authorize the giving of the instruction in this case. [Cits.]” Prothro v. State, 186 Ga. App. 836, 837 (2) (368 SE2d 793) (1988). “ ‘(W)here there is any evidence, however slight, upon a particular point, it is not error for the court to charge the law in relation to that issue. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Day v. State, 197 Ga. App. 875, 876 (2) (399 SE2d 741) (1990).
4. Shortly before trial, the State gave appellant notice of its intent to prosecute him as a recidivist under OCGA § 17-10-7. Appellant’s contention that this notice was not timely is controlled adversely to him by Anderson v. State, 176 Ga. App. 255, 256 (335 SE2d 487) (1985).

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Birdsong, P. J., Pope, Cooper, Andrews, JJ., and Judge Arnold Shulman concur. Beasley, J., dissents.