Campbell v. State, s. 48558
| Decision Date | 05 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Nos. 48558,48559,s. 48558,2 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 836,201 S.E.2d 666 |
| Parties | Clyde T. CAMPBELL v. The STATE. James E. GIBSON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Albert G. Ingram, Augusta, for appellants.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., J. Bacheller Flythe, Augusta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In the joint appeal of their burglary convictions entered July 24, 1972, appellants Campbell and Gibson raise two issues: whether the verdicts were contrary to the law and the evidence; and whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence in absence of a request to do so.
Appellants were tried for the December 20, 1971 burglary of the Garrett home, and at trial Mr. and Mrs. Garrett testified to the occurrence of a burglary on that date at which time guns and a silver service, among other things were stolen. Mr. Garrett identified numerous state exhibits as the stolen items. The evidence was that pursuant to information received, the police searched the premises of a Mr. Doyle for stolen goods, finding the items in question. Doyle's testimony identified these items as having been sold to him by the defendant Campbell who came to his place of business to do so, and he testified that Gibson had accompanied Campbell at the sale of one gun, and perhaps on an additional trip as well. Doyle further testified that he was himself under indictment for receiving stolen goods.
In their unsworn statements, both appellants referred almost exclusively to the circumstances of their subsequent arrests, which occurred as they were again on Doyle's premises, this time with pipe wrenches and other tools in the back of their car, together with three guns which Gibson's statement informed the jury were stolen guns, though he claimed to have bought them earlier in the day from an unidentified man at the Amvets Club. Both appellants insisted they had gone to see Doyle only because he owed Campbell money; neither appellant denied, affirmed, explained, or in any way whatsoever referred to Doyle's testimony that they had previously sold him the guns and silver service identified by Mr. Garrett.
Thus, as to those items including the silver service, the record presents a complete absence of any explanation whatever by either appellant for their possession, as reflected in Doyle's testimony, of that recently stolen property.
The judge did not charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence; however he did charge fully on reasonable doubt. The jury convicted both defendants. The state on the penalty phase of the trial then introduced evidence of a former felony conviction of each defendant, and the jury subsequently sentenced each to 20 years.
The evidence of a defendant's unexplained possession of recently stolen property is circumstantial evidence (Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279(5), 141 S.E.2d 604), and therefore where such evidence is the only evidence tending to show guilt, the rule with regard to the court's charging on the law of circumstantial evidence (Code § 38-109) is as follows: 'When in the trial of a criminal case the evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial, it was the duty of the judge not only to charge upon the law of reasonable doubt, but also, whether so requested or not, to state to the jury the rule usually applicable in such cases, to the effect that the evidence must connect the accused with the perpetration of the alleged offense, and must not only be consistent with his guilt, but inconsistent with every other reasonable hypothesis.' Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301(1), 22 S.E. 528. In a wholly circumstantial case, where the judge fails so to charge, defendant is, as a general rule, entitled to a new trial. Id. Gallman v. State, 127 Ga.App. 849, 195 S.E.2d 187; Kelley v. State, 20 Ga.App. 821, 93 S.E. 497; Harris v. State, 18 Ga.App. 710, 90 S.E. 370. This rule has been recognized in the following cases among others: DePalma v. State, 228 Ga. 272, 185 S.E.2d 53; Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292(11), 174 S.E.2d 440; Pippins v. State, 224 Ga. 462(3), 162 S.E.2d 338; Simmons v. State, 129 Ga.App. 107(4), 198 S.E.2d 718; Nolen v. State, 124 Ga.App. 593, 184 S.E.2d 674.
This court has sometimes implied that the only valid exceptions to the rule are cases in which a verdict of guilty was demanded by the evidence, in which case a new trial will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hancock v. State
...264, 98 S.E.2d 564; Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649, 31 S.E. 574; Williams v. State, 239 Ga. 12, 13(2), 235 S.E.2d 504; Campbell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 836, 837, 201 S.E.2d 666; Nelms v. State, 150 Ga.App. 720, 721, 258 S.E.2d 531; Howard v. State, 148 Ga.App. 598, 599-600(5), 251 S.E.2d 829; We......
-
Howard v. State, 56538
...engaged in physical combat with the deceased. B. We reject the state's contention, citing Germany, supra, and Campbell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 836(2), 201 S.E.2d 666, that the failure to charge was harmless because the defendant failed to offer a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocenc......
-
Cook v. State
...inference may be. OCGA § 24-1-1(4); Bankston v. State, 251 Ga. 730, 309 S.E.2d 369. It is circumstantial evidence. Campbell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 836, 837, 201 S.E.2d 666. In Price v. State, 180 Ga.App. 215(2), 348 S.E.2d 740, we held: "In a burglary prosecution where the only evidence tend......
-
Williams v. State
...in failing to give the charge even without a request. Germany v. State, 235 Ga. 836, 843, 221 S.E.2d 817 (1976); Campbell v. State, 129 Ga.App. 836, 201 S.E.2d 666 (1973). The other three defendants, however, against whom there was direct evidence, were not entitled to such an instruction a......