Gainous v. State, 68073
| Decision Date | 06 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68073,68073 |
| Citation | 319 S.E.2d 62,171 Ga.App. 157 |
| Parties | GAINOUS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Parker, Bainbridge, for appellant.
J. Brown Moseley, Dist. Atty., Ron S. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and appeals (1) on the general grounds. He also contends the trial court erred (2) by failing to suppress evidence seized as a result of an illegal arrest and (3) by failing to give the requested charge on possession and identity of recently stolen property.
Police responded to a burglar alarm from the Cairo Country Club in Grady County, Georgia at 4:32 a.m. On arrival a sheriff's investigator saw appellant kneeling behind a garden bed between some shrubbery and the clubhouse. Appellant was ordered to come out of the bushes twice, and after the second order he came out, was arrested and handcuffed. Four cans of Coors beer were found at the spot where appellant was first observed. Two windows in the clubhouse were broken, and four cans of Coors beer were missing from the cooler in the pro shop; the beer found where appellant was kneeling was ice cold. Appellant had no authority to be in the clubhouse and no authority to take the beer.
1. We find the evidence sufficient to meet the standards of proof required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the beer found at the site where appellant was first observed. Although the beer was marked for identification as State exhibits, the cans of beer were never offered or admitted into evidence. The overruling of a motion to suppress evidence becomes moot when such evidence is not introduced at trial. Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410, 416(3), 216 S.E.2d 258 (1975).
3. Appellant contends it was error to deny his request to charge that where the State relies upon a defendant's recent possession of stolen goods to prove he committed a burglary, it is absolutely essential that identity of the stolen goods be indisputably established. While this is a correct statement of the law, Tommie v. State, 158 Ga.App. 216, 218(4), 279 S.E.2d 510 (1981), the requested charge was not applicable here. At a hearing to determine jury charges, the trial court informed defense counsel that it did not intend to charge on recent possession and, therefore, appellant's request to charge on recent possession would not be given. Appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State
...The overruling of a motion to suppress evidence becomes moot when such evidence is not introduced at trial. Gainous v. State, 171 Ga.App. 157, 158(2), 319 S.E.2d 62 (1984). Appellant also contends that information from the unauthorized taps of his and a codefendant's telephone was used to o......
-
Noeske v. State, 73160
...offense and thus relieves him of the lesser. See Ward v. State, 175 Ga.App. 410(2), 333 S.E.2d 669 (1985); Gainous v. State, 171 Ga.App. 157, 158(3), 319 S.E.2d 62 (1984). Moreover, the evidence did not establish the greater offense because, although it showed the declaration of habitual vi......
- Glass v. State, 67950