Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0620,A94A0620 |
| Citation | 444 S.E.2d 142,213 Ga.App. 212 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Copeland, Thomas & Haugabrook, Vincent D. Hyman, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., J. David Miller, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Melvin J. Davis appeals from his convictions for shoplifting, attempting to elude an officer and obstruction of an officer. Defendant also challenges his sentence of confinement in the Lowndes County jail for a period of more than one year.
1. In his first two enumerations of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict resulting in a verdict that was contrary to the weight of the evidence and in denial of his right to due process. A directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence and all reasonable deductions and inferences that can be drawn from it demand a verdict of acquittal. Pierce v. State, 209 Ga.App. 366, 368(4), 433 S.E.2d 641 (1993). On appeal, this court does not reweigh the evidence but only determines its legal sufficiency. Lysfjord v. State, 208 Ga.App. 811(1), 432 S.E.2d 247 (1993).
The following evidence was presented by the State: On November 11, 1992, an employee at a gasoline station (the "station") observed a young man carrying cases of two-liter Pepsi cola from a display area in the front of the store to a car parked at the side of the store. The employee alerted his colleague to call the police. The man, realizing the employee saw him, put down the colas and fled around the southeast corner of the building. The employee stood watch until a police officer arrived. He told the officer what he saw and that he suspected the white car parked on the side of the store was where the man was taking the colas. The officer parked his car behind that vehicle in case it was being used in the crime, noted the tag number and called it in to determine who was the owner. Then the employee and officer walked inside the store to complete a report.
While they were inside, an off-duty officer stopped by the station to buy gasoline. The investigating officer told that officer what happened. When the off-duty officer went back outside the station, someone told him a man wearing no shirt was watching them from a ditch area in apartments across the street. The off-duty officer walked across the street to those apartments and observed a man wearing no shirt running across the street toward a vehicle located at the station. He radioed the officer inside the store and told him what he was observing and also gave chase. Before either officer could arrive at the vehicle, the man entered the vehicle and locked the doors.
The police officers approached the vehicle, advised him they were officers and ordered him to exit the vehicle. The man refused, started the car, and began to try to free the vehicle from being blocked by the patrol car. While the officers were attempting to get the man out of the car, they were very close to him. Both were able to give accurate descriptions and later identify him as the defendant. 1 The defendant was able to free the car and fled the scene. The investigating officer gave chase, but defendant abandoned the vehicle and was able to escape on foot. The automobile was recovered and stolen colas were found in the trunk.
When the owner of the vehicle was contacted by the police, she informed them that she had lent her automobile that evening to defendant, her boyfriend. Defendant was later arrested and charged.
Clearly the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcher v. State
...and all reasonable deductions and inferences that can be drawn from it demand a verdict of acquittal. [Cit.]" Davis v. State, 213 Ga.App. 212, 444 S.E.2d 142 (1994). During the state's case in chief, Detective Wayne Cain testified that appellant told him that he "bought the gun off the stre......
- Wheeling v. Ring Radio Co.
-
Givens v. State
...evidence but only determines its legal sufficiency. Lysfjord v. State, 208 Ga.App. 811(1), 432 S.E.2d 247 (1993)." Davis v. State, 213 Ga.App. 212(1), 444 S.E.2d 142 (1994). At trial, co-defendant Richard Lee Roberts testified that Givens and another co-defendant, Terry Christopher, discuss......
-
Georgia Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Dillard, A11A1712.
...meaning of words and if there is only one reasonable construction, the statute must be construed in that manner.” Davis v. State, 213 Ga.App. 212, 213(2), 444 S.E.2d 142 (1994). The test of the validity of an administrative rule is twofold: whether it is authorized by statute and whether it......