Bruster v. State, 26944
| Decision Date | 11 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26944,26944 |
| Citation | 228 Ga. 651,187 S.E.2d 297 |
| Parties | Sherman BRUSTER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joel M. Feldman, Charles S. Stewart, James H. Mobley, Jr., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, David L. G. King. Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant, Sherman Bruster, was indicted for armed robbery in three counts. He was convicted on Counts 1 and 2, and sentenced to 15 years on each count, to run concurrently. He filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds, and by amendment added two additional grounds. The motion for new trial, as amended, was overruled on every ground. The appeal is from that judgment. Held:
1. Enumerated error 3 alleges that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial and amended motion for new trial. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Bruster, with two companions, after midnight on June 19, 1971, entered the Crossroads Restaurant in Atlanta, armed with shotguns and pistols, and robbed two of the employees, Melvin Crawford and Marcus Washington, of $27 and $70, respectively. Bruster made an unsworn statement denying participation in the robbery, although he admitted that he was found hiding in the attic of the restaurant during the early morning hours of June 19, 1971. The general grounds are without merit.
2. Enumerated error 1 alleges that the court erred in charging the jury that: The appellant contends that the italicized charge is confusing, misleading, and prejudicial to him, and an improper explanation or definition, and that it relieves the State from proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The portion of the charge complained of is only an excerpt from the charge. Charges on the subject of reasonable doubt in substantially the same language as here have been approved in Connell v. State, 153 Ga. 151(2), 111 S.E. 545; Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 207(1), 78 S.E.2d 521; Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 489(8), 99 S.E.2d 884; and Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151, 155(2), 149 S.E.2d 111. This ground is without merit.
3. Enumerated error 2 alleges that the court erred in charging the law of conspiracy, as it was not alleged in the indictment and is a separate offense under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. State
...may be proved, though not alleged in the indictment or accusation. Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186(8), 42 S.E. 357." Bruster v. State, 228 Ga. 651, 652, 187 S.E.2d 297 (1972); Knowles v. State, 159 Ga.App. 239, 283 S.E.2d 51 (1981). The court acted properly in instructing the jury regarding App......
-
Hernandez v. State, 73705
...of it based on his activities as a conspirator, even though conspiracy is not alleged in the indictment. See Bruster v. State, 228 Ga. 651(3) (187 SE2d 297) (1972). Venue in such a case is properly laid in the county in which the substantive offense is committed, even though the defendant m......
-
Osborn v. State, 62988
...of it based on his activities as a conspirator, even though conspiracy is not alleged in the indictment. See Bruster v. State, 228 Ga. 651(3), 187 S.E.2d 297 (1972). Venue in such a case is properly laid in the county in which the substantive offense is committed, even though the defendant ......
-
Marshall v. State
...229(2), 109 S.E. 664; Merritt v. State, 152 Ga. 405(1), 110 S.E. 160; Connell v. State, 153 Ga. 151(2), 111 S.E. 545; Bruster v. State, 228 Ga. 651(2), 187 S.E.2d 297; Kryder v. State, 57 Ga.App. 200, 201, 194 S.E. 890; Deering v. State, 123 Ga.App. 223(3), 180 S.E.2d 245. The charge here d......