Bradley v. State, A12A0989.
| Decision Date | 24 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A12A0989.,A12A0989. |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sara E. Meyers, for Appellant.
Dennis C. Sanders, Dist. Atty., Thomson, William Patrick Doupe, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
After a bench trial, Bobby Lee Bradley was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property.1 He appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the state failed to show that he knew or should have known that the shotgun he possessed was stolen. Finding no error, we affirm.
Upon a finding of guilt following a bench trial, the presumption of innocence no longer applies, and the appellate court construes the evidence in favor of the judge's determination of [Bradley's] guilt. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but merely determines the sufficiency of the evidence.2
So construed, the evidence showed the following. Gordon Walton testified that he kept a double-barrel shotgun and a rifle in his pickup truck. In April 2010, he noticed that his truck had been broken into and the guns were missing; he had last seen the guns a few weeks to a month earlier. Walton contacted the sheriff's office to report the theft, and on April 7, 2010, an investigator went to Walton's home to investigate.
Albert Nunnally testified that Bradley offered to sell him a double-barrel shotgun for $40. According to Nunnally, "it was a good deal for that type of gun." Nunnally purchased the shotgun from Bradley. About two weeks earlier, Walton, who was Nunnally's friend and Bradley's cousin, had told Nunnally that someone had stolen his guns. Nunnally contacted Walton and showed him the shotgun he had purchased from Bradley. Walton identified the shotgun as the one that had been taken from his truck. Walton then contacted the investigator and reported that Nunnally had returned the shotgun after allegedly having purchased it from Bradley.
On April 27, 2010, the investigator went to Bradley's home and spoke with him about the shotgun. At first, Bradley denied having "ever sold any guns," but then he admitted to the investigator that he had sold the gun to Nunnally. Bradley told the investigator that he had the shotgun for about two years, having bought it from a co-worker (whose name he did not know). After the state laid a foundation for its admission, the court admitted into evidence, without objection, a recording of the investigator's conversation with Bradley.3
At trial, the defense called as a witness Bradley's nephew. The nephew testified that he had left the shotgun at Bradley's house after a friend left it at the nephew's house, and that the nephew did not know that the shotgun had been stolen. Bradley did not testify at trial.
Bradley contends that the state failed to prove that he knew that the shotgun had been stolen; he asserts that his mere possession was not sufficient to support the conviction, and that there was a reasonable explanation as to why he had possessed the shotgun—namely, that his nephew had left it at his house.
[W]here the defendant offers an explanation of circumstantial facts or an alternative hypothesis of events, the reasonableness of that explanation is for the factfinder. Because the factfinder has heard the witnesses and observed them testify, it is considered more capable of determining the reasonableness of the hypothesis produced by the evidence or lack thereof than is an appellate court.6
The state's case against Bradley was not based solely upon possession. The evidence included facts and circumstances from which Bradley's knowledge that the shotgun was stolen could have been inferred.7 For example, Bradley made contradictory statements to the investigator concerning whether he had sold a gun to anyone; Bradley's own witness contradicted Bradley's statements regarding how and from whom Bradley had acquired the shotgun; and Bradley's statement that he had acquired the shotgun two years earlier (from a co-worker whose name he did not know) conflicted with Walton's testimony as to when his truck was broken into and the shotgun was stolen. The conflicts in the evidence created a credibility issue regarding the circumstances surrounding Bradley's possession of the shotgun, which the factfinder resolved adversely to him.8 Notably, there was also evidence that Bradley's asking price of $40 for that type of working shotgun was "a good deal."9
In this case, there was sufficient evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...produced by the evidence or lack thereof than is an appellate court.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bradley v. State , 317 Ga. App. 477, 479, 731 S.E.2d 371 (2012). In a bench trial, "if the judge is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, is sufficient to exclude e......
- Moore v. State
-
Miller v. State
...from which [his] knowledge that the [drills were presented to him as] stolen could have been inferred.” Bradley v. State, 317 Ga.App. 477, 479–480, 731 S.E.2d 371 (2012) (citation omitted). Such facts and circumstances included the informant telling Miller that the items were not “hot, hot,......
-
Miller v. State
...from which [his] knowledge that the [drills were presented to him as] stolen could have been inferred." Bradley v. State, 317 Ga. App. 477, 479-480 (731 SE2d 371) (2012) (citation omitted). Such facts and circumstances included the informant telling Miller that the items were not "hot, hot,......