Curry v. State, 63414

• Decision Date: 08 April 1982
• Docket Number: No. 63414,63414
• Citation: 162 Ga.App. 71,290 S.E.2d 179
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: CURRY v. The STATE.

Page 179

290 S.E.2d 179

162 Ga.App. 71

CURRY v. The STATE.

No. 63414.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 8, 1982.

Bobby Bearden, Macon, for appellant.

Willis B. Sparks, III, Dist. Atty., G.F. Peterman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant appeals from his conviction of forgery in the first degree.

1. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. "The jury was authorized to disbelieve the appellant's testimony and to accept the cashier's testimony that the appellant had forged the endorsement. [Cit.]" Williams v. State, 143 Ga.App. 177, 237 S.E.2d 677 (1977). "Identity of the defendant is an issue for the trier of fact and the credibility of the witness [identifying the defendant] ... is not to be decided by this court. [Cit.]" Tate v. State, 153 Ga.App. 508, 510(2), 265 S.E.2d 818 (1980). "Issues regarding credibility of witnesses must be resolved solely by the jury. [Cit.] In this instance the jury, obviously, chose to believe the state's witnesses." Redd v. State, 154 Ga.App. 373(1), 268 S.E.2d 423 (1980). After a review of the entire record, we find that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. During the course of the cross-examination of the individual whose endorsement had been forged to the check, appellant's counsel asked: "In other words, what you're saying is nobody really had permission to cash that check, but you weren't really intending to press charges?" Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's sustaining of a relevancy objection to this question. "There was no error in repelling evidence as to reluctance of the [witness] to prosecute. [Cit.]" Reid v. State, 129 Ga.App. 657, 659(4), 200 S.E.2d 454 (1973). "That the accused and the prosecutor may have, since the commission of the offense, 'made up' and become good friends, is irrelevant. [Cit.] Matters of this kind do not, in any reasonable degree, tend to establish the probability, or lack thereof, of the issue in controversy. [Cit.]" Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302, 304, 190 S.E.2d 807 (1972).

3. Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to charge without request on his "sole" defense of mistake of fact. Appellant was not tried on the theory that he had aided and abetted another in the commission of the crime of forgery but rather on the theory that he had directly committed the crime. Compare Bowers v. State, 153 Ga.App. 894, 897(2), 267 S.E.2d 309 (1980). Appellant denied that he had committed any act criminal whatsoever. It was appellant's contention that all criminal acts which the state's evidence showed that he had committed had been committed by another. "A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the act or omission to act constituting the crime was induced by a misapprehension of fact, which, if true, would have justified the act or omission." (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 26-705. Having denied the commission of any act...