Daniels v. State, 29815
| Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29815,29815 |
| Citation | 234 Ga. 523,216 S.E.2d 819 |
| Parties | Maryland DANIELS, a/k/a Marian Daniels v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert L. Cork, Valdosta, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Valdosta, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Stephen Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Appellant Daniels appeals from her 1973 Lowndes County convictions and sentences for armed robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, and carrying a weapon without a license. At her jury trial the evidence showed that appellant waited in an automobile with another woman while the women's husbands robbed a hardware store. The other three occupants of the automobile pleaded guilty, and two of them testified for the State at Daniels' trial, though their testimony was at variance in some particulars. Daniels denied that she had any knowledge of the robbery until after the fact, and she denied that she had driven the automobile away from the vicinity following the robbery.
1. On this appeal appellant contends that there was no evidence such as testimony of another accomplice or physical evidence directly implicating her, to corroborate any inference arising from the testimony of the first accomplice sufficiently to convict her of the crimes charged.
Code Ann. § 26-801 provides that 'Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.' The statute further provides in § 26-801(b)(3) that a person is a party to a crime if he 'intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime.'
The Court directly confronted the issue of the sufficiency of corroboration of an accomplice's testimony in Brown v. State, 232 Ga. 838, 209 S.E.2d 180: Even where the testimony of the State's witnesses is contradictory in important areas, the conflicts present an issue for jury determination. Hackney v. State, 233 Ga. 416, 211 S.E.2d 714.
There was adequate evidence, including corroboration of the first accomplice's testimony, to authorize the jury to conclude that an armed robbery had taken place, a concealed weapon violation had occurred, and appellant had been a party to those crimes. Therefore, answering enumerations 1, 2 and 8 concerning those convictions, the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal and sending the question of guilt to the jury.
2. Enumeration 3 urges that the court erred in overruling a defense objection to testimony by Annie Mae Ross that the two men had a pistol with them when they left the car to go to the hardware store. The ground of the objection was that there was not yet in the record anything tending to show that appellant either knew of the gun or saw it. The objection was properly overruled; the State was attempting to show that an armed robbery had been perpetrated by the two men, and whether appellant did or did not know of or see the gun was irrelevant to that point and was not reason to refuse to allow the State to show the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...898 (1976), and the proper method of proving such a conviction is by the introduction of a certified copy thereof. Daniels v. State, 234 Ga. 523(3), 216 S.E.2d 819 (1975). Nevertheless, if no best evidence objection is interposed, a witness's answer to the effect that he or she has been con......
-
Harwell v. State
...Clarke v. State, 239 Ga. 42(3), 235 S.E.2d 524 (1977); Rolland v. State, 235 Ga. 808, 811, 221 S.E.2d 582 (1976); Daniels v. State, 234 Ga. 523(4), 216 S.E.2d 819 (1975); Adams v. State, 229 Ga.App. 381(2), 494 S.E.2d 92 (1997), where, in each case, this Court or the Court of Appeals upheld......
-
Arnold v. State
...the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial or to direct a verdict for the defendant on this ground. Daniels v. State, 234 Ga. 523, 216 S.E.2d 819 (1975); Brown v. State, supra; Hackney v. State, 233 Ga. 416, 211 S.E.2d 714 The charge to the jury on corroboration correctly ......
-
Drake v. State, 35817
... ... 804] of the court in which he was convicted'." Rolland v. State, 235 Ga. 808, 811, 221 S.E.2d 582, 585 (1976); Daniels v. State, 234 Ga. 523, 524, 216 S.E.2d 819 (1975). Accordingly, Beckom's admissions on the stand about his convictions for crimes involving moral ... ...