Baugh v. State, 19057
| Decision Date | 10 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 19057,19057 |
| Citation | 211 Ga. 863,89 S.E.2d 504 |
| Parties | Jack BAUGH, alias BOUGH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert H. Green, Milledgeville, for plaintiff in error.
George D. Lawrence, Sol. Gen., Eatonton, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. The first amended ground of the motion for new trial complains of the ruling denying a motion by the defendant's counsel for a directed verdict of not guilty, made when the first witness for the State left the witness chair. It is not error in a criminal case to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty. Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704, 88 S.E.2d 381. However, the basis for the motion here is that, without knowing or waiting until the State rested to see what other evidence would be offered, the motion for a directed verdict of not guilty was made when the first witness for the State testified that the $4,800 taken by the robbers was taken from a drawer in the owner's bedroom instead of from the person of that owner, as alleged in the indictment. No matter how objectionable or deficient the testimony might have been, it could not have been legally assailed by the motion for a directed verdict.
2. The other amended ground of the motion sets forth evidence in question and answer form, relating to the suspicions of a witness for the State as to two persons who knew the prosecutrix had the money, and the refusal of the court to require the witness to disclose the name of such persons; then considerable space is consumed setting forth the testimony of the county physician that it was his opinion that the prosecutrix was not physically able to attend court as a witness. It nowhere appears what this witness was expected to testify, and no motion for a continuance was made. While the ground is thus too confused to present properly any question for decision, it is obvious that, if in proper form, neither complaint would be meritorious.
3. There was direct evidence that the accused tied both Mrs. Phillips, the owner, and her husband after pointing revolvers at them and took $4,800 cash belonging to Mrs. Phillips. There was much other evidence but this alone was enough to prove robbery by open force or violence; and the venue having been clearly proven, the evidence authorized the verdict of guilty with a recommendation. Proof that money of the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, 21430
...397, 99 S.E.2d 120; Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704(2), 88 S.E.2d 381; Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863(1), 89 S.E.2d 504. 3. The first ground found in the bill of exceptions of the defendants is that the trial judge erred in overruling their gene......
-
State v. Ballard
...that the defendant removed money from a cash register unaided by the victim; the court found no material variance. In Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863, 89 S.E.2d 504 (1955), variance between an indictment charging robbery 'from the person' and evidence showing the money was taken from a drawer i......
-
Winford v. State, 19735
...verdict of not guilty. Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704, 88 S.E.2d 381.' Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863, 89 S.E.2d 504, 505. Ground 11, complaining of the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict of not guilty is without 6. The verdict was ......
-
Jones v. State, 22415
...defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal. Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863, 89 S.E.2d 504. 11. The final special grounds complain that the court's sentence of 12 months upon the public works, 6 months in jail and a $1,00......