DeLoach v. State, 53967
| Decision Date | 28 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53967,53967,2 |
| Citation | 142 Ga.App. 666,236 S.E.2d 904 |
| Parties | Timothy W. DeLOACH v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Duffy & Shearouse, Robert C. Shearouse, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, III, Dist. Atty., Michael K. Gardner, Robert M. Hitch, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., Savannah, for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction on two counts of burglary. Held:
1. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict and new trial, and in entering judgment on the jury verdict of guilty of both counts where the verdict was contrary to law, the evidence, and principles of justice and equity.
In the early morning hours of June 2, 1974, two service stations were burglarized in Savannah. Entry was gained by breaking the center bay windows of each building. A short period of time after the burglaries, defendant was seen running across a street "in this area," by a policeman on his way home. He notified his headquarters to dispatch a unit to that area. Another police officer heard the call and "started searching (his) beat just in case of a burglary." He found one of the burglarized stations. Another police officer testified that he participated in the search for the defendant and apprehended him "under a table top that was turned up on the side . . . and he had tunnelled out enough under it for it to lay flat and where all you could see was the bottom of his feet." A search of the defendant revealed "some checks and charge cards from the American Oil Station that had been burglarized." After being advised of his rights the defendant told a detective about planning the burglaries with two other persons and that while his friends actually entered the buildings he was outside acting as a "look-out." There is evidence that the defendant consumed a substantial amount of intoxicants prior to these burglaries but when he was questioned by a detective following the incidents he did not appear to be under the influence of anything.
A person who acts as a "look-out" during the commission of a burglary is participating in the commission of that crime within the meaning of Code Ann. § 26-801 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1271) and is as guilty as the active participants. Lundy v. State, 130 Ga.App. 171, 172(1b), 202 S.E.2d 536. Further, even though defendant testified as to how he came into possession of the stolen goods, almost immediately after commission of the offense, the fact that he possessed the stolen property under these circumstances King v. State, 141 Ga.App. 316, 317, 233 S.E.2d 274, 275.
We find that the direct and circumstantial evidence, taken together, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Code Ann. § 26-301, that the defendant did intentionally aid and abet the other criminal actors in planning and carrying out the two burglaries charged, and may be convicted of the commission of those crimes. Cunningham v. State, 235 Ga. 126, 127, 218 S.E.2d 854.
The trial court did not err in entering judgment on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. State
...S.E.2d 534 (1993). A person acting as a lookout during the commission of a crime is a participant in that crime. DeLoach v. State, 142 Ga.App. 666(1), 236 S.E.2d 904 (1977). 9. Cochran's third enumeration complains of the admission of a "similar act" against On June 30, 1991, the Winn Dixie......
-
People v. Davenport
...70, 190 N.W.2d 726 (1971). A defendant could be guilty as an aider and abettor even if he were merely the "lookout", DeLoach v. State, 142 Ga.App. 666, 236 S.E.2d 904 (1977), or the driver of the car used in taking the principal to the building, State v. Wilson, 221 Kan. 359, 559 P.2d 374 P......
-
Jefferson v. State
...additional evidence and argument in extenuation, mitigation, and aggravation of punishment. It is mandatory. DeLoach v. State, 142 Ga.App. 666, 667(2), 236 S.E.2d 904 (1977); Raymond v. State, 168 Ga.App. 487, 488, 309 S.E.2d 669 (1983). No such hearing was conducted, and neither party prot......
-
Armstrong v. State
...the state has made known to the defendant prior to [his] trial shall be admissible." This provision is mandatory. DeLoach v. State, 142 Ga.App. 666(2), 236 S.E.2d 904 (1977); Jefferson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 687(2), 423 S.E.2d 425 (1992). The requirement of notice comports with the concerns ......