We affirm.Īfter the facts which formed the basis of the prosecution first came to light in February 1986, the state filed a complaint against defendant in magistrate court. Defendant also raises an issue concerning cumulative error, but because we find no error there can be no cumulative error. We discuss: (1) whether the information should have been dismissed because the state and defendant had an agreement whereby defendant would not be prosecuted if he fulfilled certain conditions (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing a videotaped deposition into evidence or in not dismissing the prosecution for violation of the six-month rule and (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting certain alleged pornographic materials into evidence. Other issues listed in the docketing statement but not briefed are deemed abandoned. Wilson, Wilson & Martin, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.ĭefendant appeals his conviction for multiple counts of criminal sexual offenses involving his daughter and another child.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |