Brown v. State, 46770
| Decision Date | 18 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46770,No. 2,46770,2 |
| Parties | Willie L. BROWN v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hendon & Henley, J. W. Moulton, Decatur, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Bryan M. Cavan, Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Willie Lee Brown was found guilty of burglary by a jury in DeKalb County. He has taken this appeal after the overruling of his motion for new trial. The enumeration of errors includes the denial of the new trial motion on general grounds and three charges to the jury by the trial court.
Appellant earnestly contends the State's case was built entirely upon circumstantial evidence based solely upon recent possession of goods identified as taken during the burglary. Pointing to Code Ann. § 38-109 he contends that the State has not excluded every other reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt of the accused. We disagree.
Defendant and another accused were apprehended in front of the residence which had been burglarized no more than five minutes before arrest. They were pushing an automobile which upon search was found to have hidden under the front seat the cameras which had been taken in the burglary. The appellant and the other defendant were then placed in the rear seat of the patrol car. Shortly thereafter while officers were searching for a missing small .22 caliber revolver the accused and his confederate were removed from the patrol car. Beneath the rear seat where they had been sitting were found a box of .22 caliber shells and a stereo adaptor cable. These two items were identified by certain special markings as proceeds of the burglary. Defendant denied breaking into the house and explained he had purchased the cameras from two boys walking down the street as they were pushing the car and that the bullets were given to them by the two boys.
1. The appellant analogizes his case to Shropshire v. State, 69 Ga. 273, where the issue was possession of property found in a dwelling occupied by more than one person, the Supreme Court ruling that finding goods found under these circumstances was not conclusive evidence that the goods were in the possession of any one of them. We find the situation here to be similar to Cheatham v. State, 57 Ga.App. 858, 197 S.E. 70 and that appellant and his confederate were in joint and exclusive possession of the car. Furthermore, there is the discovery of the stolen items found where they had been seated in the back seat of the police car. 'The jury alone have the right to determine upon the force and effect of the facts and circumstances proved, and whether or not they are satisfactory in warranting them in finding the defendant guilty.' Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 513(8).
2. In a prosecution for larceny or burglary the recent possession of the property alleged to have been stolen by the defendant is considered sufficient proof, if the jury sees fit to accept it, to satisfy the requirements of the circumstantial evidence rule as contained in Code § 38-109. Myerholtz v. State, 109 Ga.App. 352, 136 S.E.2d 165; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...of guilt that properly was submitted to the jury for determination. Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279, 141 S.E.2d 604; Brown v. State, 125 Ga.App. 300, 187 S.E.2d 301. 3. Appellants enumerate several errors upon that portion of the jury charge concerning recent possession of stolen goods. It......
-
Brown v. State
...of recently stolen goods, unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury, authorizes an inference of guilt of burglary. Brown v. State, 125 Ga.App. 300, 302, 187 S.E.2d 301; Mathews v. State, 103 Ga.App. 743, 120 S.E.2d 359; Tarver v. State, 95 Ga. 222, 21 S.E. 381; Myerholtz v. State, 109 Ga.......
-
Strong v. State
...guilty has the approval of the trial court, we shall not disturb it on appeal. Killen v. State, 50 Ga. 223 (1873); Brown v. State, 125 Ga.App. 300(4), 187 S.E.2d 301 (1972). It matters not whether it was appellant or Charles Conroy who actually fired the gun during the robbery which resulte......
-
Moody v. State, 47052
...of course, the marijuana could have belonged to either, neither, or both the occupants of the automobile. Brown v. State, 125 Ga.App. 300(1), 187 S.E.2d 301. No evidence suggests any explanation whereby it could have been placed in the car without either Satterfield or Moody knowing of its ......