Bruce v. State
Decision Date | 24 October 2001 |
Docket Number | No. A02A0047.,A02A0047. |
Citation | 555 S.E.2d 819,252 Ga. App. 494 |
Parties | BRUCE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Augusta, for appellant.
Jacklyn E. Bruce, pro se.
Daniel J. Craig, Dist. Atty., Charles R. Sheppard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee. ELDRIDGE, Judge.
A Richmond County jury found Jacklyn E. Bruce guilty of aggravated assault, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime. He appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the effectiveness of his trial attorney, and the trial court's charge to the jury. After careful review of the errors as enumerated, we affirm.
Viewed in a light to uphold the jury's verdict,1 the evidence shows that at approximately 2:00 a.m. the victim, a Radio Cab driver, was waiting for a fare at a cabstand located outside the Honky Tonk lounge in the 1600 block of Gordon Highway in Augusta. Bruce, who was "very intoxicated," approached. Bruce asked the victim to "take him for a ride" without giving an address. Pursuant to company policy, the victim asked to be paid $25 in advance because of Bruce's intoxication and ambiguous destination. Bruce paid the money, and the victim followed Bruce's directions "eastbound toward the city [Augusta]" to the Hyde Park/Aragon Park area of Dan Bowles Road, an area known for high drug crime. When the victim informed Bruce that he did not travel in that area past a certain hour of the evening, Bruce produced a "long stainless steel black-handled knife" and told the victim So, the victim took him.
After the victim returned to the cab, Bruce directed him toward Highway 25. While heading "south on Highway 25," the taxi cab dispatcher came on the radio, stating to the victim, The victim testified that when Bruce heard this information, he Bruce, still sitting beside the victim in the front seat of the cab holding the knife toward the victim, Immediately thereafter, the victim spotted a police car. He testified that
The victim gave an officer a description of Bruce, as well as the direction in which Bruce had fled up Cadden Road. The officer testified that he After calling for backup, the officer exited his vehicle and approached the grassy area in which he had last seen the suspect. A Pepsi-Cola bottle and a large black-handled knife were found in that area of the grass. Bruce was located approximately 12 feet away lying flat on the grass attempting to hide under a plastic trash bag of aluminum cans. Thereafter, several chunks of wax were found in the backseat of the victim's cab. At trial, when asked about venue, the officer testified that "all this [was] taking place" in Richmond County.
Shortly after his arrest, Bruce volunteered a statement that the victim and he had been drinking Canadian Mist whiskey and smoking marijuana together; that an argument ensued; and that the victim wrested Bruce's knife away from him and chased Bruce with it. The investigating officer also took a statement from the victim and, in deference to Bruce's version of events, administered a breath test to the victim which showed his blood alcohol content as 0.00. At trial, the officer testified that this occurred in Richmond County. Held:
1. Bruce claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and insufficient as to venue in Richmond County.
[A]ny challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury's verdict of guilty must be viewed to uphold the verdict. Since a jury found [Bruce] guilty, this Court looks only to see if there is a factual basis from which a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a guilty verdict was warranted. We do not judge the credibility of the witnesses. We do not revisit conflicts in the evidence. And we will not simply substitute our opinion for that of the jury. So long as there is some competent evidence to support each element of the offense(s) as charged, the jury's verdict will be upheld. 2
(a) Here, the victim's testimony alone established the essential elements of aggravated assault, hijacking a motor vehicle, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime.3 The victim's testimony was corroborated by physical evidence discovered at the time of Bruce's arrest, as well as by testimony from the Amoco clerk that the victim was scared and told her that there was a man with a knife in his cab; she called the police at his insistence.
Bruce contends the evidence was insufficient to convict on aggravated assault because the victim testified Bruce put a knife to his neck, as opposed to his throat as alleged in the indictment. The record shows there is a conflict in the evidence as to this point in that the officer to whom the victim gave his statement testified that on the incident date the victim stated that Bruce put a knife to his "throat." The victim, on the other hand, testified that he did not remember making that statement—as well as other statements—and that Bruce did not hold a knife to his throat, but to his "neck." However, the victim also testified that his memory would have been better on the incident date. The resolution of any conflict in the evidence was for the jury.4 Since there is a factual basis for finding Bruce held a knife to the victim's throat as per the indictment, we will not go behind the jury's resolution of such conflict.
Bruce contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for hijacking a motor vehicle because the victim was never separated from his vehicle. However, the offense of hijacking a motor vehicle is complete when a "person while in possession of a firearm or weapon obtains a motor vehicle" from the victim.5 The concept of "obtaining" a motor vehicle from its owner encompasses the notion of acquiring control thereof, regardless of whether the victim remains with the vehicle.6
Bruce claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a knife during the commission of a crime because the jury was not given a measuring device in order to determine that the blade of such knife measured three inches or more pursuant to statutory requirements. However, the knife at issue was introduced into evidence for the jury's consideration, and, as a matter of fact, the knife "had a six-inch blade." Further, defense counsel stated at trial that the "Buck 119 series" knife had a blade of "about six inches." The indictment charged that Bruce did have "on his person a knife having a blade of three or more inches in length," and the trial court instructed the jury that the State must prove the offense as charged in the indictment. With the knife in evidence and the jury able to determine that the blade was well over three inches long, a measurement of common knowledge, such is sufficient to support the jury's verdict.7
(b) Likewise, we find the evidence of venue sufficient. "Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may establish venue."8 With regard to this case, a police officer testified that "all this" was taking place in Richmond County. No other county was at issue, and there was no evidence that venue was proper elsewhere. Further, the testimony from the cab driver/victim was extremely detailed as to the exact locations involved in the incident, from the Honky Tonk...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Reese
...accomplished by force or fear.” (Emphases added and omitted.) (quoting Cal.Penal Code § 215 (West 2000) )).¶ 74 In Bruce v. State, 252 Ga.App. 494, 555 S.E.2d 819 (2001), the Georgia appellate court reflected on the Georgia offense of hijacking a motor vehicle, which is complete when a “per......
-
Middleton v. State
...a motor vehicle" from another by force, violence, or intimidation is necessarily a principal thief. See Bruce v. State , 252 Ga. App. 494, 497 (1) (a), 555 S.E.2d 819 (2001) (explaining that motor vehicle hijacking requires the vehicle be obtained from the victim).By finding Middleton guilt......
-
Jackson v. the State., A10A2164.
...of “obtain” in criminal statute, and holding that the offense is concluded when the property is attained); Bruce v. State, 252 Ga.App. 494, 497(1)(a), 555 S.E.2d 819 (2001) (“[T]he offense of hijacking a motor vehicle is complete when a person while in possession of a firearm or weapon obta......
-
Dade v. State
...would have been different but for counsel's deficiency." (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Bruce v. State, 252 Ga.App. 494, 498(2), 555 S.E.2d 819 (2001). "A trial court's finding that a defendant has not been denied effective assistance of trial counsel will be affirmed unless......