Hill v. State, 30920
| Decision Date | 27 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30920,30920 |
| Citation | 225 S.E.2d 281,236 Ga. 831 |
| Parties | Dwellie HILL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hinton R. Pierce, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., Stephen E. Curry, Asst. Dist. Atty., Augusta, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Dwellie Hill appeals his convictions on five counts of armed robbery after a jury trial in Richmond Superior Court. A review of the enumerations of error requires that we reverse the trial court's judgment in this case.
The evidence revealed the following: On December 5, 1974, around twilight, three masked men bearing pistols entered the White Horse Whiskey Store in Richmond county and stated, 'This is a holdup, gimme your money.' The robbers tied up two female customers who were in the store and took their purses from them. They also took the money in the cash register as well as other items (watch and billfold) belonging to the employees.
At the joint trial of Richard Miller and Dwellie Hill, the state produced a witness by the name of Alvin Hawkins who testified that he and the two defendants on trial participated in the armed robbery of the whiskey store. He identified two of the ski masks used in the robbery and these masks were admitted into evidence without objection. He testified that appellant wore the grey ski mask during the robberies which the witness identified as State's Exhibit No. 3. Another state's witness had testified that the two masks received in evidence looked similar to the ones worn by two of the robbers. In addition, an officer testified the two masks received in evidence were found in a car occupied by Hawkins, the two defendants and a fourth person two days after the robbery when arrests were made in this case.
On cross examination, witness Hawkins admitted that he had been convicted of robbery in 1968 and served a prison term for that offense. He also admitted that he had made a 'deal' with the state whereby he was to receive a seven-year sentence in exchange for testimony in this and several other cases. This witness was allowed, over defense objection, to testify about other alleged armed robberies in which Hawkins, the two defendants on trial and a fourth person participated. Two other witnesses were allowed, over objection, to testify about two of the other armed robberies which were staged by three masked men, but neither witness identified appellant as a participant. All of the armed robberies allegedly occurred in Richmond County during the same month as the White Horse Whiskey Store robbery. Motions for mistrial made on behalf of the defendants on trial were denied by the trial court.
Both defendants testified in their own behalf and each denied any participation in the White Horse Whiskey Store episode. The trial court specifically instructed the jury on the evidence relating to the other robberies. The jurors were told that they 'should use this testimony, if at all, in the consideration of the case before them as a circumstance to throw light upon the intent, scheme, plan or bent of mind of the defendants when the alleged armed robbery was committed, if such armed robbery was in fact committed.'
There were a number of similarities common to all of the armed robberies. They all occurred during the same month in Richmond County. In each instance, three gunmen entered the front door of a business with either ski masks or pillow cases over their heads. In each criminal transaction the store and customers in it were robbed. The victims were made to lie on the floor and pistols were used to intimidate the occupants and accomplish the thefts.
If appellant had been identified as a participant in the other alleged armed robberies by some evidence other than the testimony of the one alleged accomplice, there would be no error in the admission of the testimony for the limited purpose for which it was received into evidence. See Fears v. State, 236 Ga. 660, 225 S.E.2d 4 (1976), and cits., in addition to Irving v. State, 233 Ga. 353, 211 S.E.2d 309 (1974); and Davis v. State, 233 Ga. 638, 212 S.E.2d 814 (1975). However, the only evidence identifying appellant as a participant in any of the alleged armed robberies came from the testimony of the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgess v. State
...483 (1991). A prior similar transaction may not be proved solely by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 225 S.E.2d 281 (1976). In this case, however, the State produced both the detailed testimony of appellant's accomplice in the 1977 armed robbery and......
-
Edwards v. State
...the accomplice being seen driving the defendant's car near the victim's house around the time of the crime). Cf. Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 833, 225 S.E.2d 281 (1976) (no testimony except the accomplice's that grey ski mask like the one used in robbery belonged to the defendant). Other evi......
-
Moses v. State, No. A03A2118
...after the crime and told him that someone had been left behind. This evidence satisfied the corroboration requirement. Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 225 S.E.2d 281 (1976), relied upon by Knott, is distinguished on its facts. In Hill no corroboration of any kind existed for a co-defendant's te......
-
Gilmore v. State
...of this additional, non-statutory requirement for separate corroboration of the identification and participation. Id. at n. 4, 457 S.E.2d 667. 3.Hill v. State, 236 Ga. 831, 833–834, 225 S.E.2d 281 (1976) (citations omitted; emphasis supplied). 4. But see Caldwell v. State, 227 Ga. 703, 706–......