Bryant v. State, A94A0719
| Decision Date | 25 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0719,A94A0719 |
| Citation | 213 Ga.App. 301,444 S.E.2d 391 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BRYANT v. The STATE. |
Hodges, Erwin & Hedrick, David W. Orlowski, Albany, for appellant.
Britt R. Priddy, Dist. Atty., Gregory W. Edwards, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of robbery by sudden snatching. On appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, defendant argues the trial court erred in not charging the lesser included offense of theft by taking.
The trial transcript reveals that the victim was pushing her grocery cart through the meat section in a supermarket. The victim stopped her cart to look at a ham. The victim's purse was in the child seat of the cart which was located approximately two feet away from her. The victim picked up the ham to look at it and, as she turned around, she saw a man slowly lifting her purse out of the cart. The victim began screaming at the man, and the man quickly began walking backward with the victim's purse. The victim ran after the man who was apprehended by another customer in the store. The victim identified defendant as the man who took her purse.
OCGA § 16-8-40(a)(3) provides that "[a] person commits the offense of robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another ... [b]y sudden snatching." "A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes ... property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property...." OCGA § 16-8-2.
Defendant argues that his written request for a charge on the lesser included offense of theft by taking should have been given because there was a question of fact as to whether the purse was taken from the victim's immediate presence. We disagree. In Welch v. State, 235 Ga. 243(1), 219 S.E.2d 151 (1975), the Supreme Court of Georgia noted that one's immediate presence extends fairly far, and robbery convictions will generally be upheld, even if the object taken was out of the physical presence of the victim, if the object was under his control or his responsibility and if the victim was not too far distant. See also Sypho v. State, 175 Ga.App. 833(2), 334 S.E.2d 878 (1985). (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sypho, supra at 834, 334 S.E.2d 878.
"[I]n order to prove a case of robbery by suddenly taking or carrying away the property of another without his consent, it is only necessary to show that the person robbed was conscious that something was being taken away from him, and that for any reason he was unable to prevent it; and consequently the only difference now between robbery of this class and larceny from the person is that in the latter case the property is abstracted without the knowledge of its possessor; but if the possessor becomes conscious, even in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. the State.
...Ga.App. 645, 646(1), 481 S.E.2d 856 (1997) (defendant took bag from victim's car while victim stood beside car); Bryant v. State, 213 Ga.App. 301, 302–303, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994) (victim turned her back on her grocery cart but turned around in time to see defendant taking her purse). 11. 210......
-
Mathis v. State
...under the victim's personal protection. Id. See also Welch v. State, 235 Ga. 243, 245(1), 219 S.E.2d 151 (1975); Bryant v. State, 213 Ga. App. 301, 302, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994). In the instant case, there was testimony that Drains was on duty and responsible for the money in the cash register......
-
King v. State, A04A1917.
...20. See Graham v. State, 275 Ga. 290, 292(2), 565 S.E.2d 467 (2002). 21. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bryant v. State, 213 Ga.App. 301, 302, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994). 22. 265 Ga.App. 511, 594 S.E.2d 734 23. 244 Ga.App. 419, 535 S.E.2d 795 (2000). 24. Id. at 425(1), 535 S.E.2d 795. 25. ......
-
Perkins v. State
...was under his control or his responsibility and if the victim was not too far distant." (Citations omitted.) Bryant v. State, 213 Ga.App. 301, 302, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994). Within this definition, a person may be deemed to protect all of his property "within a distance, not easily defined, ov......
-
Criminal Law - Frank C. Mills, Iii
...S.E.2d at 585. 73. Id. at 584, 436 S.E.2d at 587. 74. Id., 436 S.E.2d at 586. 75. Id., 436 S.E.2d at 586-87. 76. 7d.,436S.E.2dat587. 77. 213 Ga. App. 301, 444 S.E.2d 391 (1994). 78. Id. at 301, 444 S.E.2d at 391. 79. Id. at 302, 444 S.E.2d at 391-92 (quoting Williams v. State, 9 Ga. App. 17......