Gude v. State, A94A1117
| Decision Date | 16 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1117,A94A1117 |
| Citation | 213 Ga.App. 573,445 S.E.2d 355 |
| Parties | GUDE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Timothy L. Lam, Monticello, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., James L. Cline, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Jessie James Gude appeals his conviction for burglary.
Law enforcement officers in Monticello, responding to an alarm at a doctor's office, saw appellant coming around the side of the doctor's building. When appellant saw the officers, he ran. Several officers chased appellant for several minutes before he was caught. Appellant's left arm was cut and had been bleeding. Nothing was taken from the doctor's office, but a window was broken; blood was found inside the building at the window, the curtains were pulled from inside the window to the outside, and a piece of black cloth was hanging from inside the window to the outside. This piece of cloth matched the black jersey which appellant was wearing when he was apprehended.
Appellant enumerates two errors on appeal. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal on the burglary count. Appellant contends there is no evidence he entered the building, but a jury may find that he did enter the building, as blood was found on the floor inside the window, the curtains were hanging outside the broken window from the inside as if pulled through by someone leaving through the window, and part of appellant's jersey was found hanging from inside the window. A directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions, demands a verdict of acquittal. OCGA § 17-9-1. That is, a directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only where there is no evidence to support a verdict of guilt. Mathis v. State, 204 Ga.App. 896, 420 S.E.2d 788. That is not the case here.
2. The trial court did not err in requiring appellant to be shackled with leg irons during trial and in the jury's presence.
A separate pretrial hearing was held on the State's request that appellant be shackled during trial because he was a "clear escape risk." The sheriff testified there was never a time that appellant had not run when he had a chance. Appellant had escaped twice from jail: once over a razor-wire fence, and a second time, he was mopping in the cell block and ran out just as the deputy opened the gate. He also ran to escape custody when he was a juvenile, even though he was handcuffed.
Appellant asserted below and argues here that he could not easily run from the courtroom, as there were only two doors to it: a revolving door which was difficult to exit under any circumstances, and one that led into a holding room which could be locked from the outside. Appellant also argued that deputies could be placed at the doors.
It is well established that the accused while in the presence of the jury shall be free of indicia of guilt such as shackles or prison garb, or being surrounded by uniformed security personnel or anything that might infringe on the presumption that he is innocent; but at trial, where there is good and sufficient cause, the court has discretion to require a defendant to be shackled. Abuse of discretion is the test on appeal. Dennis v. State, 170 Ga.App. 630, 317 S.E.2d 874. See Thomas v. State, 171 Ga.App. 306, 308, 319 S.E.2d 511, where we held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the defendant to wear leg irons at trial, because he had escaped thrice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Kelley v. State
...which the alarm was triggered. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also Gude v. State, 213 Ga.App. 573-574(1), 445 S.E.2d 355 (1994) (finding evidence sufficient to prove an entry to support appellant's burglary conviction where blood was found insid......
-
Noble v. State
...208 Ga. 435, 438(2), 67 S.E.2d 221 (1951); accord Johnson v. State, 226 Ga. 511, 514(5), 175 S.E.2d 840 (1970); Gude v. State, 213 Ga.App. 573, 575(2), 445 S.E.2d 355 (1994); Ingram v. State, 211 Ga.App. 252, 254-255, 438 S.E.2d 708 (1993); Pullen v. State, 208 Ga.App. 581, 583(2b), 431 S.E......
-
Allen v. State
...from county jail and once from the courthouse while in leg irons). 14. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mapp, supra. 15. 213 Ga.App. 573, 445 S.E.2d 355 (1994). 16. Id. at 574(2), 445 S.E.2d 17. Id. at 575(2), 445 S.E.2d 355. 18. Mapp, supra; Hicks, supra; Pace, supra. 19. Mapp, supra a......
-
Banks v. State
...for its decision, and we find no abuse of discretion. See Jivens v. State, 215 Ga.App. 306, 307(4), 450 S.E.2d 328; Gude v. State, 213 Ga.App. 573, 574(2), 445 S.E.2d 355. The trial court was not required to put the sheriff under oath before receiving his statements, as a court officer's st......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...17. 213 Ga. App. 571, 445 S.E.2d 353 (1994). 18. Id. at 571, 445 S.E.2d at 353. 19. Id. 20. Id., 445 S.E.2d at 354. 21. Id. at 573, 445 S.E.2d at 355 (Beasley, P.J., concurring specially). 22. Id. 23. Id. See 213 Ga. App. 528, 445 S.E.2d 558. 24. 213 Ga. App. 875, 447 S.E.2d 302 (1994). 25.......