Bridges v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 45761,45761,3 |
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 685,123 Ga.App. 157 |
| Parties | Herman L. BRIDGES v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under disputed testimony, the jury was authorized to find against the defense that this defendant, one of three who were together when a church was burglarized, was drunk or asleep and took no part in the planning or perpetration of the crime.
2. In the absence of a written request it is not error to fail to charge on the subject of impeachment of witnesses.
3. The defense of alibi is not involved.
4. Where the State does not rely upon the evidence of an accomplice for conviction, it is not error in the absence of request to fail to charge on the necessity for corroboration of such witness. Here the State made out a prima facie case by testimony that the defendant and two others were apprehended on the church premises with an organ amplifier which had been removed from the church and which was resting a few feet from their automobile, apparently about to be loaded in it.
5. Objections to the conduct of the examination of a witness not made in the trial court will not be considered here.
6. The offense of burglary as set out in the new Criminal Code does not require proof of a breaking.
7. The rule of law that larceny may be inferred from the recent possession of stolen goods unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury refers to possession after the larceny has been completed. The instruction is irrelevant but harmless where all the facts show that burglary has been committed and the defendants apprehended before they have had a chance to leave the premises.
Police officers on patrol passed a churchyard at about 3 a.m. and observed a car in the yard with two men standing beside it. As they turned in to investigate one of the men later identified as Collins attempted to flee. The second, Chitwood, was arrested on the spot as was the defendant who was sitting in the front seat of the automobile. An organ amplifier which had been removed from the church was found about five feet behind the car. Collins and Chitwood pleaded guilty to burglary. Bridges appeals from his conviction on a jury trial.
Gilbert & Carter, Fred A. Gilbert, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Stephen A. Land, J. Melvin England, Tony H. Hight, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. The defendant was sworn and testified that he had joined the co-indictees after playing in a band, had drunk a considerable amount of liquor and fallen asleep in the car, and waked up just before the police car arrived. Collins corroborated this testimony and stated that Bridges did not know of the plan to burglarize the church, was asleep when they got there, and did not go inside. Chitwood testified that the plans were made by all three defendants and that Bridges went to the church door with Collins and himself and held it open as they carried out the amplifier. The testimony of the minister of the church and one of the detectives was offered for impeachment to show that Collins' original account of the affair had agreed with that put forward by Chitwood, and that the attempt to exonerate the defendant was an afterthought.
The defense sought to be established here is the same as in Greeson v. State, 90 Ga.App. 57, 81 S.E.2d 839, where there was no material conflict in the evidence and all witnesses testified that the defendant had drunk a large quantity of liquor and was drunk or asleep in the car when the plan to burglarize a store was effected and remained so until noon of the next day. The court held: 'Where * * * there is direct evidence that a defendant on trial in a criminal case was present at the scene of the crime, but no evidence that he participated therein, this is insufficient to support a verdict of guilty where the circumstances are consistent with his contention that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...411 S.E.2d 276 (1991). 6. Butler v. State, 194 Ga.App. 895, 897(2), 392 S.E.2d 324 (1990). 7. OCGA § 16-7-1(a); Bridges v. State, 123 Ga. App. 157, 160(6), 179 S.E.2d 685 (1970). Accord Toney v. State, 225 Ga.App. 228, 483 S.E.2d 627 (1997). 8. OCGA § 16-4-1; Smith v. State, 189 Ga.App. 27,......
-
Bowers v. State, 59455
...and not understanding that the vehicle was being stolen. See Greeson v. State, 90 Ga.App. 57, 60, 81 S.E.2d 839; Bridges v. State, 123 Ga.App. 157, 159(1), 179 S.E.2d 685. Compare Treadwell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 573, 574(4), 200 S.E.2d 323 and Nichols v. State, 133 Ga.App. 717, 718(3), 213 ......
-
Almond v. State, 47720
...(Gentry v. State, 83 Ga.App. 330, 63 S.E.2d 611), while the new Code no longer contains the requirement of breaking. Bridges v. State, 123 Ga.App. 157, 160, 179 S.E.2d 685; Blankenship v. State, 123 Ga.App. 496, 181 S.E.2d 544. Compare Criminal Code of Georgia § 26-1601 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249......
-
Ricks v. State
...the crime and the other two suspects, including this defendant, had nothing whatsoever to do with the burglary. See Bridges v. State, 123 Ga.App. 157(1), 158, 179 S.E.2d 685. 2. The discovery of the burglary, notification of the police and immediate search for the automobile was sufficient ......