Booker v. State, 28436
| Decision Date | 07 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28436,28436 |
| Citation | 231 Ga. 598,203 S.E.2d 194 |
| Parties | Lindsey Lee BOOKER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, T. K. Adams, Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., W. Louis Sands, law student, Stephen Pace, Jr., Macon, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., William F. Bartee, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen Parker, John B. Ballard, Jr., Deputy Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal arises from the conviction of the defendant on two counts of a three count indictment charging him with armed robbery. There was evidence adduced that the defendant and two others entered a place of business (Handy Andy No. 35) and while the defendant held a shotgun and robbed a store employee, his companions robbed an employee of a bakery who was in the store at that time.
The indictment on which the defendant was tried contained three counts. In addition to the two counts on which he was convicted it contained an additional count which charged the defendant with another armed robbery approximately one week later. A motion to sever was overruled. When the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict as to Count 3, this count of the indictment was removed from the jury's consideration and nol prossed by the district attorney.
When the defendant was called to the stand the court instructed him in the presence of the jury, as to his right to be sworn or to make an unsworn statement, after which he made an unsworn statement. During the trial witnesses were asked about having identified the defendant's picture from a group of pictures shown them after the armed robberies. Held:
1. In Stull v. State, 230 Ga. 99(5), 196 S.E.2d 7, a full bench decision, it was held that the trial court has a discretion as to whether a single defendant may be tried in a single trial for more than one crime. In Wingfield v. State, 231 Ga. 92, 104, 200 S.E.2d 708 with two Justices dissenting, it was held that a motion to quash could not be used as a vehicle to have determined if the trial court erred in permitting three counts of an indictment to be tried jointly by a single jury, and that it is not error in every case to submit separate counts of an indictment to a single jury. Each case must be determined on its own facts and even if the several alleged crimes arise out of one transaction they may be tried separately or jointly in the interest of justice. Code Ann. § 26-506.
Yet, where the separate crimes did not arise out of the same conduct, did not involve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...court officers because they were "simply separate crimes of different character, committed 13 days apart"); Booker v. State , 231 Ga. 598, 599, 203 S.E.2d 194 (1974) ("[W]here the separate crimes did not arise out of the same conduct, did not involve the same victims or witnesses and the ev......
-
Woolfolk v. State
...that both murder victims were family members, no common scheme or plan could be inferred behind the homicides); Booker v. State, 231 Ga. 598(1), 203 S.E.2d 194 (1974) (severance required where separate crimes did not arise out of same conduct, did not involve same victims or witnesses and e......
-
Davis v. State, 61825
...the crimes charged were so similar as to evidence a common plan or scheme and revealed an identical modus operandi. Booker v. State, 231 Ga. 598, 203 S.E.2d 194 (1974), relied upon by Davis is distinguished because the evidence in that case showed that the evidence of one crime would not be......
-
Brown v. State
...that the Nissan was connected with the auto theft ring. Nor was Brown directly implicated in the auto theft ring. In Booker v. State, 231 Ga. 598, 203 S.E.2d 194 (1974), the Supreme Court held that two separate charges of armed robbery arising out of incidents that occurred one week apart s......