Daniels v. State, 27635
| Decision Date | 08 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27635,27635 |
| Citation | 195 S.E.2d 900,230 Ga. 126 |
| Parties | Lewis M. C. DANIELS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carter Goode, William M. Weller, Morris H. Rosenberg, James H. Mobley, Jr., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David J. Bailey, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Lewis M. C. Daniels as convicted of the offense of armed robbery and sentenced to serve twenty years in the penitentiary.
The evidence shows that the victim of the robbery and his two children were working in his store on Friday night, December 21, 1971. About 8:45 two men entered the store, one had a scar on the left side of his face, wore dark glasses, a raincoat and dark trousers. When the scarfaced man was told the store did not sell beer, he pulled a shotgun from his coat and ordered the victim to lie on the floor, took his billfold and his diamond ring. The other man forced the victim's daughter to give him the money in the cash register. During the robbery, two young girls entered the store. The two robbers then ran out of the store. The victim and his son pursued them but they escaped. The following Monday, a man with a scar on the left side of his face was in the victim's store. When he left, the victim notified the police and described the man's automobile. As a result of this and other information, the police apprehended the appellant who had a scar on the left side of his face and who was identified by the victim, his children, and the two girls as the man who held the shotgun during the robbery. Held:
1. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge without request: 'A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention, but the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.' Code Ann. § 26-605 (Acts 1968, pp. 1249, 1269).
The trial court fully charged the jury on the law of criminal intent and it was not necessary that he give the exact language of the Code. There is no merit in enumerations of errors 3 and 8.
2. Enumerations of error Nos. 2 and 9 complain of certain remarks made by the district attorney during the trial and in his argument to the jury. No objections were made to these statements in the trial court.
Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435, 438, 67 S.E.2d 221, 224; Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706, 100 S.E.2d 919. There is no merit in these contentions of the appellant.
3. The appellant contends the court erred in charging the jury that: 'A reasonable doubt may arise out of a consideration of the evidence, from a lack of or insufficiency of the evidence, or it may be engendered by a defendant's statement.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The appellant contends that the emphasized portion of the above charge was error because the disjunctive 'or' was used and that the jury could find reasonable doubt existed 'in either lack or insufficiency of the evidence or engendered by the defendant's statement that part of the defendant's statement could be considered along with the other evidence or lack of evidence or may be found from the lack of or insufficiency of the evidence or the defendant's statement.' There is no merit to this contention. Substantially the same charge has been given on reasonable doubt and has been approved by this court. Bonner v. State, 152 Ga. 214(1), 109 S.E. 291; Connell v. State, 153 Ga. 151(2), 111 S.E. 545; Hunsinger v. State, 225 Ga. 426(10), 169 S.E.2d 286.
4. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentley v. State, 48573
...S.E.2d 221, 224. (Also subsequently quoted with approval in Johnson v. State, 226 Ga. 511, 514(5), 175 S.E.2d 840 and Daniels v. State, 230 Ga. 126, 127, 195 S.E.2d 900). As defendant did not follow the above requisites and made no objections of any type in regard to enumerations numbers 8 ......
-
Cofield v. State
...proceedings so as to require reversal, especially in the absence of a timely objection or motion for mistrial. See Daniels v. State, 230 Ga. 126(2), 195 S.E.2d 900 (1973); Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160(2), 259 S.E.2d 133 (1979); see also Boulware v. Texas, 542 S.W.2d 677 (Crim.App.1976), c......
-
Arnold v. State
...later." Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435(2), 67 S.E.2d 221; Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706(2), 100 S.E.2d 919. See also Daniels v. State, 230 Ga. 126, 127(2), 195 S.E.2d 900; Strozier v. State, 231 Ga. 140, 141(1), 200 S.E.2d 762. Compare Sprouse v. State, 242 Ga. 831, 834(5), 252 S.E.2d 173 (a ......
-
Chafin v. State
...to review the closing argument in view of the fact that defendant made no objection or motion for a mistrial. Daniels v. State, 230 Ga. 126(2), 195 S.E.2d 900 (1973); cf. Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929(6), 214 S.E.2d 365 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1 Beaver's testimony, reco......