Estep v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 73969,73969 |
| Citation | 181 Ga.App. 842,353 S.E.2d 913 |
| Parties | ESTEP v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Randy J. Ebersbach, Valdosta, for appellant.
Arthur E. Mallory III, Dist. Atty., Randall K. Coggin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
James Terry Estep was convicted of burglary and sentenced to serve 12 years. He brings this appeal enumerating four alleged errors. Held:
1. In his last enumeration of error, Estep complains the evidence was insufficient to withstand a motion for direction of a verdict of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence. We will treat this enumeration first.
When considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support the refusal of the direction of a verdict, this court must afford the evidence that view which is most favorable to the State for every inference is in favor of the verdict. Taylor v. State, 138 Ga.App. 95, 96, 225 S.E.2d 508. When the evidence is viewed from this prospective, the jury was warranted in believing that around midnight on June 14, 1986, three of the State's witnesses were in a house directly opposite the burgled store. The occupants of the house heard the breaking of glass and looked out the window. They individually or collectively observed across the street a blond-headed white male pacing back and forth in front of the well-lighted store. They observed a second male inside the store, apparently having entered through a broken plate glass window. They observed a dark-headed person of medium build exiting the store. He was wearing a blue jogging suit. The two men were seen running from the store up an embankment into a parking lot of an adjacent hospital. A few moments later a small grey car was seen exiting the hospital parking lot with two occupants.
A police officer returning home from duty was passing the hospital parking lot at the same time. He had heard over his radio a moment earlier that a burglary had occurred in the same store which had been observed by the occupants of the house opposite the store. As the police officer passed the parking lot he saw a small grey automobile exit the lot and proceed in the same direction in which he was driving. The officer stopped his car and allowed the small grey car to pass. As the car passed, he saw a blond-headed man driving the vehicle and a dark-haired man in the passenger seat wearing a blue jogging suit. The officer positively identified the co-accused Williams as the driver. The officer recorded the grey car's tag and then proceeded to the burgled store. Thereafter, based upon information concerning the owner of the grey car (Estep's sister), Estep and the co-accused (Williams) were arrested. After the arrest, the three occupants of the house were brought to the police station and identified Williams as the blond-headed person pacing up and down in front of the store and based upon his build, dark hair and the same style blue jogging suit, identified Estep as the person exiting the store through the broken plate glass window.
Our review of this evidence satisfies us in an overwhelming manner that any rational trier of fact would have found Estep's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. Accordingly, there could have been no error by the trial court in denying the motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Davis v. State, 234 Ga. 730, 732, 218 S.E.2d 20. There is no merit in this enumeration.
2. The first three enumerations of error deal with the charge of the court and more specifically with the failure to give three specific requested charges.
a. Estep complains that the trial court failed to charge that mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime would not authorize a conviction without additional evidence. In regard to this charge, while it is true the trial court did not charge in the language requested, the jury was strongly directed in the charge that mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. The State, A09A1701.
...by the evidence.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Hill v. State, 259 Ga. 557, 558(3)(b), 385 S.E.2d 404 (1989) (quoting Estep v. State, 181 Ga.App. 842, 844, 353 S.E.2d 913 (1987)). “ ‘If any portion of the request is inapt or incorrect, denial of the request is proper.’ ” (Emphasis in Harmon v. Sta......
-
Syfrett v. State, A93A1568
...and suggestion and are more prone to imagination than are adults, since this charge was patently argumentative. Estep v. State, 181 Ga.App. 842, 844 (2c), 353 S.E.2d 913. 8. In his final enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence copies......
-
Gardner v. State
...in the case and be authorized by the evidence.'" Hill v. State, 259 Ga. 557(3), 385 S.E.2d 404 (1989) (quoting Estep v. State, 181 Ga.App. 842, 844, 353 S.E.2d 913 (1987)). The trial court did not err in not giving the requested charge because the charge was not adjusted to some principle i......
-
Alonso v. State
...as to make the court's refusal to give it error. Lewis v. State, 186 Ga.App. 349, 352(4), 367 S.E.2d 123 (1988); Estep v. State, 181 Ga.App. 842, 844(2), 353 S.E.2d 913 (1987); Brinson v. State, 111 Ga.App. 608, 609(1), 142 S.E.2d 393 If the charge was verbatim in the language of OCGA § 24-......