Gunter v. State
Decision Date | 09 September 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 59180,59180 |
Citation | 155 Ga.App. 176,270 S.E.2d 224 |
Parties | GUNTER et al. v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Paul S. Weiner, Jonesboro, for appellants.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., W. Harold Craig, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellants Ronald Gunter and Jerry Cleveland were tried before a jury for the offenses of criminal trespass and attempted livestock theft. From the resulting verdict of guilty on all counts, appellants bring this appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
1. Appellants' first, second and fourth enumerations of error present arguments raised in other enumerations and need not be separately addressed.
2. In their fifth enumeration of error, appellants contend that, under the doctrine of factual merger, they cannot be convicted of both criminal trespass and attempted livestock theft in the instant case. We agree.
Pryor v. State, 238 Ga. 698, 700, 234 S.E.2d 918, 922-23 (1977).
"A person commits criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime." Code § 26-1001. In the instant case, the state satisfied its burden of proof with respect to the offense of attempted livestock theft by introducing evidence sufficient to establish that appellants drove onto the prosecutor's farm in a pickup truck during the night without authority and with intent to steal livestock. The evidence relied upon by the state to establish the offense of attempted livestock theft was precisely the evidence used to establish that appellants had committed criminal trespass. The latter offense is therefore included in the former as a matter of fact (State v. Estevez, supra, at 320), and appellants' convictions for criminal trespass must be reversed.
3. In their sixth enumeration of error, appellants assert that "(t)he trial court erred in failing to charge, 'A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the act or omission to act constituting the crime was induced by misapprehension of fact, which, if true will justify the act or omission.' " See Code § 26-705. Although appellants made no request for such a charge at trial, it is argued that "mistake of fact" constitutes appellants' sole defense and that "the failure to give a charge on the subject, even without request, was error." Henderson v. State, 141 Ga.App. 430, 233 S.E.2d 505 (1977).
While a trial court is required to charge on a criminal defendant's sole defense of mistake of fact even absent a request to do so (Harris v. State, 145 Ga.App. 675, 244 S.E.2d 620 (1978); Henderson v. State, supra), such a charge is not required where, as here, it is not authorized by the evidence. See Nix v. State, 135 Ga.App. 672, 674, 219 S.E.2d 6 (1975).
4. In their seventh enumeration of error appellants complain of the following charge: Appellants contend this charge impermissibly shifted the burden of persuasion upon them under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
Whatever the merits of appellants' contentions that the portion of the charge quoted above is impermissibly burden shifting, it is clear that the charge taken as a whole does not suffer the asserted defect. In addition to the above charge, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ragsdale v. State
...in the article but may testify as to value if he has an opportunity to form a correct opinion. Code Ann. § 38-1709. Gunter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 176, 270 S.E.2d 224. An opinion as to value based solely on cost price is inadmissible in evidence as it has no probative value. Crowley v. State,......
-
Taylor v. State
...to make further enquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge."). 16. Gunter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 176, 177(3), 270 S.E.2d 224 (1980). 17. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hines v. State, 276 Ga. 491, 494-495(5), 578 S.E.2d 868 (2003); see also Gabri......
-
Curry v. State, 63414
...the defense of appellant's mistake of fact and, accordingly, it was not error to fail to charge on that defense. Gunter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 176(3), 270 S.E.2d 224 (1980). Compare Arnold v. State, 157 Ga.App. 714(1), 278 S.E.2d 418 Judgment affirmed. QUILLIAN, C. J., and SHULMAN, P. J., co......
-
Young v. State, 64279
...a charge thereon since it was not authorized by the evidence. See Sapp v. State, 155 Ga.App. 485, 486, 271 S.E.2d 19; Gunter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 176(3), 270 S.E.2d 224. The evidence failed to show that the defendant's act of escape was the only way to prevent "his imminent death or great ......