Bradford v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A1663,S91A1663 |
| Citation | 261 Ga. 833,412 S.E.2d 534 |
| Parties | BRADFORD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael C. Garrett, Augusta, for Bradford.
Michael C. Eubanks, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., C.A. Benjamin Woolf, State Law Dept., Atlanta, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of the crimes. 1
1. The convictions involve the armed robbery and murder of a convenience store clerk on May 30, 1989, and the armed robbery and aggravated assault of a gas station attendant three hours later in the early morning hours of May 31. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions concerning the crimes that occurred at the gas station because the only evidence connecting appellant with these crimes was the uncorroborated testimony of his alleged accomplice, Victor Cockfield. We disagree.
The rule is well established that, to sustain a conviction in a felony case upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating facts or circumstances, which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty, and [are] more than sufficient to merely cast on the defendant a grave suspicion of guilt. [Cits.]. However, the sufficiency of the corroboration evidence is peculiarly a matter for the jury to determine. If the verdict is founded on slight evidence of corroboration connecting a defendant with the crime, the verdict is legally sufficient. [Cit].... [T]he necessary corroboration may consist entirely of circumstantial evidence, and evidence of the defendant's conduct before and after the crime was committed may give rise to an inference that he participated in the crime. [Cits].
Harrison v. State, 259 Ga. 486(1), 384 S.E.2d 643 (1989). In the case at bar, eyewitnesses corroborated the accomplice's testimony that appellant participated as a look-out stationed at the front door in the convenience store armed robbery where the clerk was fatally shot. The testimony of the wounded gas station clerk revealed that the crimes committed there, less than three hours after the convenience store crimes, were strikingly similar in the method of operation. While the necessary corroborative evidence is entirely circumstantial, the evidence of appellant's conduct before the crimes at issue and the similarity between the crimes at issue and appellant's earlier conduct give rise to the inference that he participated in the crimes at the gas station. Inasmuch as there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of appellant's alleged accomplice, the evidence was sufficient to authorize appellant's convictions for the armed robbery and aggravated assault that occurred at the gas station. Myers v. State, 260 Ga. 412(3), 395 S.E.2d 811 (1990...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montgomery
...334, 807 P.2d 1009, 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 (same), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 969, 112 S.Ct. 443, 116 L.Ed.2d 462 (1991); Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833, 412 S.E.2d 534 (1992) (instruction permissible when court used only "moral and reasonable certainty"); Potts v. State, 261 Ga. 716, 410 S.E.2d 89 ......
-
Ward v. State, S92P0087
...instructions on "reasonable doubt" were not erroneous. Potts v. State, supra, 261 Ga. at 723(14), 410 S.E.2d 89; Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833, 835(2), 412 S.E.2d 534 (1992). But see Vance v. State, 262 Ga. 236, 238, fn. 5(2), 416 S.E.2d 516 (1992) in which we disapproved the use of the ph......
-
Jenkins v. Byrd
...O.C.G.A. § 24-4-8. The sufficiency of the corroboration testimony is a matter which must be determined by the jury. Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833, 412 S.E.2d 534, 535 (1992). However, Section 24-4-8 does not apply where the state does not rely solely on the testimony of a single accomplice......
-
State v. Bonner
...a reasonable doubt. Minn.Stat. § 634.04; Cal.Penal Code § 1111; Taylor v. State, 10 S.W.3d 673 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833, 412 S.E.2d 534 (Ga.1992); State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191 In summary, there was only one source of evidence that the defense could produce to r......
-
Criminal Law - Frank C. Mills, Iii
...listed by Justice Fletcher, the author lists the following: That the accused was a conspirator or party to a crime, Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833, 412 S.E.2d 534 (1992); Bradford v. State, 262 Ga. 512, 421 S.E.2d 523 (1992); predisposition of a defendant to commit a crime to rebut the entr......