Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 44482,44482 |
| Citation | 120 Ga.App. 147,169 S.E.2d 629 |
| Parties | F. J. ANDERSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gilbert & Carter, Fred A. Gilbert, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, Tony H. Hight, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Fred James Anderson was convicted of burglarizing a building wherein valuable goods were stored and was sentenced to serve 12 months, of which six months were to be served on probation. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence. held:
1. Enumerations of error 1 and 2 directed to the overruling of motions for acquittal, first at the close of the State's case, and secondly at the close of the State's case after it was reopened and again closed, are without merit. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 779, 164 S.E.2d 808; Casey v. State, 119 Ga.App. 114, 166 S.E.2d 438. There is no merit in the contention that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to authorize a conviction. After proof of the corpus delicti evidence that the defendant's fingerprints were found on parts of broken glass below the broken window of the building and the finding of a bandage covering a cut on defendant's arm when he was arrested Monday evening, the burglary having been committed over the weekend, was sufficient to meet the test of Code § 38-109 and Hill v. State, 70 Ga.App. 522, 28 S.E.2d 820. The jury was authorized to find that every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant's guilt was excluded.
2. We find no error in the sentence imposed; hence enumeration of error number 3 is without merit.
3. Officer B. L. Anderson, who investigaed the matter and testified as a witness for the State stated that he found broken glass on the ground, under shrubbery near the building and immediately below or underneath a window. (The owner testified that the window had been broken between the time he last closed the building at the end of the week and his discovery upon opening the following Monday that it had been entered and certain property removed therefrom.)
Officer Anderson asserted that pieces of glass found inside the building, in the window itself and on the ground, were similar in appearance, and from that he concluded that the glass on the ground came from the window. This was a sufficient statement of the facts upon which he based his opinion to allow the officer to express it. Enumeration number 4 is without merit.
Furthermore, the same or similar evidence was elicited several times from the same witness without objection. Waters v. Wells, 155 Ga. 439(4), 117 S.E. 322; Thompson v. State, 191 Ga. 222(2), 11 S.E.2d 795.
4. The State introduced its Exhibit No. 8, a piece of the glass found on the ground underneath the broken window carrying the defendant's fingerprints. Defendant's objection that it had not been sufficiently identified as coming from the broken window was properly overruled. It was identified in the manner indicated in Division 3, above. Enumeration numbers 5, 6 and 7, urging that the court erred in admitting the exhibit, in 'refusing to strike all evidence having to do with State's Exhibit No. 8' and in failing to limit the purpose of its admission are without merit. 'At most we think it could only be said that their admissibility was doubtful, and it has long been the rule in this state, when its admissibility is doubtful, to admit it, and leave its weight and effect to be determined by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentley v. State, 48573
...the evidence was not in rebuttal.' See also Miller v. State, 226 Ga. 730(3), 177 S.E.2d 253, and citations therein; Anderson v. State, 120 Ga.App. 147(5), 169 S.E.2d 629; Davis v. State, 127 Ga.App. 76(3), 192 S.E.2d The trial judge here took ample precaution to insure defendant of a fair t......
-
Davis v. State
...unjust or arbitrary manner.' International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, 215 Ga. 27(3), 108 S.E.2d 796, 804; Anderson v. State, 120 Ga.App. 147, 148, 169 S.E.2d 629, 630. As was said in the early case of Bigelow v. Young, 30 Ga. 121, 'It is within the discretionary power of the court to al......
-
Willis v. State
...any criminal case to direct a verdict of not guilty. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 779, 164 S.E.2d 808. See also Anderson v. State, 120 Ga.App. 147(1), 169 S.E.2d 629; Arnall v. State, 120 Ga.App. 309(2), 170 S.E.2d 5. Enumeration of error 5 complains that the trial judge abused his disc......
-
Respress v. State
...any discrepancy as to the bag and the failure to check for fingerprints was for jury consideration. Defendant cites Anderson v. State, 120 Ga.App. 147, 148(4), 169 S.E.2d 629, with reference to fingerprint evidence. However, that case is not supportive of the complaint here for it therein s......