Crosby v. State, 28988
Decision Date | 16 July 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 28988,28988 |
Citation | 232 Ga. 599,207 S.E.2d 515 |
Parties | Abe CROSBY, Jr. v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Byrd, Groover & Buford, Denmark Groover, Jr., Harry F. Thompson, Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., W. Don Thompson, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Abe Crosby, Jr. was indicted by the Grand Jury of Bibb County, in a multiple count indictment with conspiring to commit designated crimes and theft by receiving stolen property. The defendant's demurrers to such multiple count indictment were overruled. On the trial of the case a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal was granted as to one count of the indictment, but denied as to the other three counts. The jury found the defendant guilty on the remaining three counts and fixed sentences (two to run concurrently and one to follow), as authorized by the charge of the court. A motion for new trial was filed but later dismissed and the present appeal filed in this court.
1. While numerous demurrers were filed to the indictment the only question specifically argued in the brief for the appellant in this court deals with the failure of the indictment to allege whether all persons involved in falsifying two motor vehicle identification numbers were known or unknown.
The conspiracy counts of the indictment alleged numerous overt acts done by the appellant and the other named persons as well as other persons unknown. When these counts of the indictment are read in their entirety it is obvious that the others referred to, and complained of as not being identified, were persons unknown. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrers to these allegations of indictment.
2. It has long been the rule that certain crimes which are of a continuing nature may be prosecuted, at the election of the state, in any county through which the defendant travels while continuing the commission of the crime. Where a larceny is committed in one county and the property stolen is removed to another county the crime is considered as having been committed in each county and is punishable in either. Compare Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918(2), 41 S.E.2d 55; Morton v. State, 118 Ga. 306, 45 S.E. 395. The crimes here being of a continuing nature, and venue being in any county where the defendant knowingly receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property except to restore it to the owner, the provisions of Code Ann. § 26-1811 do not violate the constitutional mandate of Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Par. VI of the Constitution of Georgia of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-4906).
3. Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring to commit a series of crimes relating, in each count, to a single automobile. The crimes were so interrelated that the entering of the conspiracy at any stage of the transaction would of necessity include the defendant in the total conspiracy. The conspiracy consisted of stealing an automobile, receiving an automobile known to be stolen, hindering the apprehension and punishment of the principals involved, and with violating various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Title Act relating to the removal, falsification, etc. of identification numbers of motor vehicles. The crime charged in each of these counts is a conspiracy. Code Ann. Ch. 26-32. The total conspiracy consisted of a number of felonies. Once the total conspiracy is proved it is only necessary to prove as to the individual defendant that somewhere along the way he joined such conspiracy. As is said in 16 Am.Jur.2d, 135 Conspiracy, § 15,
One who joins a conspiracy takes it as he finds it and is responsible for acts previously done in carrying out such conspiracy. He also is responsible for actions taken in furtherance of such conspiracy until such conspiracy is ended up to and including such matters as concealing the crime or suppressing evidence.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kilgore v. State
...LaFave & Scott, supra, p. 461. See, Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947); cf. Crosby v. State, 232 Ga. 599, 207 S.E.2d 515 (1974). However, limitations have been imposed upon the concept that persons who do not know each other can "agree" to commit a ......
-
English v. State
...into the greater crime where the evidence shows without dispute that the crime charged was actually committed...." Crosby v. State, 232 Ga. 599, 602 (207 SE2d 515).' Evans v. State, 161 Ga.App. 468, 470 (288 SE2d 726)." Meyers v. State, 174 Ga.App. 161, 163, 329 SE2d 293. The Supreme Court ......
-
State v. Moulton
...and Moulton would continue in violation of section 353 when he took a stolen vehicle into another county. See Crosby v. State, 232 Ga. 599, 600, 207 S.E.2d 515, 517 (1974); Brown v. State, 281 So.2d 924, 927 (Miss.1973). As we said in Mayo v. State, 258 A.2d 269, 270 (Me.1969), "[i]f goods ......
-
Sillah v. State
... ... actually committed, or that all of the essential acts ... constituting the crime were committed." Crosby v ... State , 232 Ga. 599, 602 (3) (207 S.E.2d 515) (1974) ... Here, ... the conspiracy counts charged that, on ... ...
-
State v. Jackson and the Explosion of Liability for Felony Murder - Brian E. Brupbacher
...at 747-48. 31. Id. at 273, 430 S.E.2d at 746. 32. Id. at 273-74, 430 S.E.2d at 746-47. 33. Id. at 275, 430 S.E.2d at 747-48. 34. Id. 35. 232 Ga. 599, 207 S.E.2d 515 (1974). 36. Id. at 601, 207 S.E.2d at 518. 37. Id. at 600, 207 S.E.2d at 517. 38. Id. at 601, 207 S.E.2d at 518. 2011] STATE V......