Campbell v. State

• Decision Date: 08 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 29673,29673
• Parties: Charles Norman CAMPBELL v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 656

214 S.E.2d 656

234 Ga. 130

Charles Norman CAMPBELL v. The STATE.

No. 29673.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 8, 1975.

James W. Studdard, Jonesboro, for appellant.

William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., J. W. Bradley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

JORDAN, Justice.

Charles Campbell was convicted by a jury in the Clayton Superior Court for the crime of armed robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The only error alleged on appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a crime committed by appellant in 1967 to be admitted into evidence on the ground that it was relevant to prove motive, plan, scheme, intent or identity.

The state presented evidence to establish the following: During the early morning hours of February 9, 1974, the appellant and the alleged victim, Wade Armstrong, were at the Golden Nugget Bar and Lounge on Stewart Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia. Armstrong left the bar and walked to his car in the parking lot. He started his car, checked in the rear view mirror, but in backing out Armstrong hit the appellant's car. The appellant was leaving the establishment at the same time and after the accident the two men got out of their cars and discussed the collision. A settlement of forty dollars was worked out, the cash was paid and both men got back in their respective vehicles, whereupon the victim backed into appellant's car for a second time. After surveying the damage resulting from the second collision the two decided to let appellant's brother-in-law, who worked in a body repair shop, look at the damage and make an estimate as to how much it would cost to have appellant's car fixed. After going to a nearby restaurant, having coffee, and calling appellant's brother-in-law, the two proceeded to his house for an estimate. Armstrong testified that after getting the estimate, amounting to about $80, he told appellant that he did not have enough money on him to cover the damages and that he thought that if appellant would return his forty dollars he would just file a claim with his insurance company. Armstrong testified that appellant then went inside his brother-in-law's house, got a gun, and demanded the cash. Armstrong further testified that he told appellant that he had the cash at his house and that if he would come there he would pay him. The two then allegedly drove to Armstrong's apartment and Armstrong gave appellant the additional money. Armstrong's roommate testified that Armstrong had awakened him upon his return to their apartment and told him that there was a man with a gun outside who was trying to get money from him and that he saw Armstrong give some money to someone who was waiting in a car outside the apartment.

Appellant's defense rested mainly on the theory of alibi. The appellant, his brother-in-law, and his sister testified to substantially the same story as related by Armstrong up until the time the appellant allegedly pulled a gun on the victim. They testified that after getting the estimate Armstrong paid an additional forty dollars and left by himself. They further testified that after Armstrong left, the appellant came inside his brother-in-law's house, had a cup of coffee, and talked until appellant went next door to his mother's house where he was living with his wife and children.

The state introduced into evidence, over the objection of the defendant, the testimony of two victims of armed robberies committed by appellant in 1967 and 1974 and evidence relating to the convictions stemming from those robberies.

The appellant claims on appeal...