Coleman v. State, 18970
| Decision Date | 12 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 18970,18970 |
| Parties | F. A. COLEMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Myrick & Myrick, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Andrew J. Ryan, Sol. Gen., Savannah, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
An indictment in two counts, the first charging robbery by force and intimidation, and the second charging robbery by sudden snatching, was returned against the defendant, F. A. Coleman, and another man by the name of Ruggieri. The defendants were tried together. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against each defendant, and fixed punishment for each at four years minimum and four years maximum. The defendant, Coleman, alone filed a motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds, and later amended his motion by adding six additional grounds. Held:
1. A writ of error complaining of the judgment denying the defendant's motion for new trial as amended was transferred to this court by the Court of Appeals. The statute fixing the punishment for robber by force, Ga.L.1937, pp. 490, 491, Code Ann. § 26-2502, imposes the death penalty unless the jury recommends mercy. The Constitution of this State, article 6, section 2, paragraph 4, Code Ann. § 2-3704, gives exclusive jurisdiction to this court of writs of error in all 'cases of conviction of a capital felony.' Jurisdiction is determined, not by what punishment is actually imposed, but according to whether or not a conviction is had 'of a capital felony', and, therefore, this court, and not the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction of the present writ of error. Osborne v. State, 209 Ga. 345(1), 72 S.E.2d 317.
2. The first ground of the amended motion for a new trial assigns error upon the refusal of the trial judge, on motion of the defendant's counsel, to direct a verdict for the defendant, it being insisted that the evidence failed to show venue of the offense in Chatham County, as alleged in the indictment. This ground is without merit. It is not error to refuse to direct a verdict in a criminal case. Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589. There was ample evidence to establish venue as alleged in the indictment, a member of the Chatham County Police Force having testified positively that the place where the victim said he was attacked and robbed was in Chatham County. See, in this connection, Scott v. State, 210 Ga. 137(5), 78 S.E.2d 35; Wells v. State, 210 Ga. 422(2), 80 S.E.2d 153.
3. The second special ground of the motion complains of the charge of the court defining principals in the first and second degree, it being insisted that there was no evidence to authorize that portion of the charge dealing with constructive presence of a principal in the second degree. While the principle of constructive presence was not involved, the charge as given having specifically instructed the jury that, 'If a crime has been actually committed by someone who is guilty thereof, he is a principal in the first degree, and the principal in the second degree is one who was not only actually or constructively present when the crime was committed, but consented thereto and participated with criminal intent therein by aiding and abetting, encouraging, counselling, advising, commanding or procuring its commission,' it could not have been harmful to the defendant, since the evidence for the State and the statement of this defendant show that he was present with the other defendant at the time the robbery is alleged to have been committed. Brown v. State, 125 Ga. 281(1), 54 S.E. 162. In view of the charge as thus given, it was not error, as complained of in the third special ground of the motion, to fail to charge, without request, that 'mere proof of presence is not sufficient to render one an aider or abettor or authorize his conviction.'
4. In the instant case the evidence disclosed that a watch belonging to the alleged victim of the robbery was found shortly thereafter in the possession of the defendant jointly indicted and tried with the plaintiff in error. The charge of the court that, 'In considering the evidence and the defendants' statements, if you find that the property or any part of it alleged to have been taken from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, 21430
...of not guilty. Winford v. State, 213 Ga. 396, 397, 99 S.E.2d 120; Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704(2), 88 S.E.2d 381; Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863(1), 89 S.E.2d 3. The first ground found in the bill of exceptions of the defendants is that the t......
-
Winford v. State, 19735
...error in a criminal case to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty. Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704, 88 S.E.2d 381.' Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863, 89 S.E.2d 504, 505. Ground 11, complaining of the failure of the trial court to direct a verdi......
-
Beam v. State
...The challenged portion of the charge did not intimate a conclusion on the part of the trial court. Id. Compare Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704, 705(5), 88 S.E.2d 381 (1955) (where the trial court charged the jury that " 'the evidence shows that there was a robbery ...' 6. Beam asserts the tri......
-
Cornett v. State
...error in a criminal case to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty. Williams v. State, 206 Ga. 107(10), 55 S.E.2d 589; Coleman v. State, 211 Ga. 704, 88 S.E.2d 381; Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863(1), 89 S.E.2d 504; Winford v. State, 213 Ga. 396(5), 99 S.E.2d 120; and Albert v. State, 215 Ga.......