Holcomb v. State, 27803

Decision Date25 April 1973
Docket NumberNo. 27803,27803
Citation198 S.E.2d 179,230 Ga. 525
PartiesJames R. HOLCOMB v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

The question certified by the Court of Appeals is answered in the affirmative.

Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for appellee.

MOBLEY, Chief Justice.

The Court of Appeals has requested instructions from this Court upon the following question:

'Where the evidence establishes that an accused committed a robbery by the use of an offensive weapon may he or his co-conspirator be convicted of the 'lesser included offense' of robbery by intimidation?

'See Section 26-1901 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1298); Section 26-1902 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1298; 1969, p. 810) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Compare Rider v. State, 226 Ga. 14(1), 172 S.E.2d 318, with Hill v. State, 229 Ga. 307, 191 S.E.2d 58; Watson v. State, 229 Ga. 573, 574(1), 192 S.E.2d 897; Tenney v. State, 230 Ga. 49, 195 S.E.2d 410.'

Code Ann. § 26-1901 provides: 'A person commits robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another (a) by use of force; or (b) by intimidation, by the use of threat or coercion, or by placing such person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or to another; or (c) by sudden snatching. A person convicted of robbery shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.' Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1298.

Code Ann. § 26-1902 provides: 'A person commits armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon. The offense robbery by intimidation shall be a lesser included offense in the offense of armed robbery. A person convicted of armed robbery shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.' Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1298; Ga.L.1969, p. 810.

In Wilson v. State, 229 Ga. 224(3), 190 S.E.2d 78; Hill v. State, 229 Ga. 307, 191 S.E.2d 58, supra; Watson v. State, 229 Ga. 573, 574(1), 192 S.E.2d 897, supra; and Tenney v. State, 230 Ga. 49, 195 S.E.2d 410, supra; the question for determination by this court was whether evidence which authorized a conviction of armed robbery required a charge to the jury on robbery by intimidation. In each of the cases this court stated that it was not error to fail to charge on robbery by intimidation since the evidence would not authorize a conviction of that offense. After further consideration of Cdoe Ann. § 26-1902, we are unanimously of the opinion that we were in error in these decisions in holding that the evidence would not authorize a conviction of robbery by intimidation. Rather, we should have held that the failure to charge on robbery by intimidation was not error because the evidence did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Styles v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 24 September 2014
    ...of a gun, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery).22 Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525, 527, 198 S.E.2d 179 (1973) (emphasis in original); see Clark, supra; Hopkins, supra.23 Supra.24 See text accompanied by footnote 14, supra.25 Al......
  • Tew v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 21 September 2000
    ...failure to charge on this lesser included offense is not error where the evidence does not demand such a charge. Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525, 527, 198 S.E.2d 179 (1973). Here, the uncontradicted evidence was that Tew pointed a gun at Officer Prieto and forced him to hand over the keys to ......
  • Wisdom v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 2 June 1975
    ...trial did not demand a jury instruction on the elements of theft by taking or the elements of simple assault. See, Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525, 198 S.E.2d 179. Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to charge on these Additional argument is made by appellant, in a supplemental ......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 3 October 2003
    ...failure to charge on this lesser included offense is not error where the evidence does not demand such a charge. Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525, 527, 198 S.E.2d 179 (1973). Here, the uncontradicted evidence was that Lynch pointed a gun at the victim. There was no evidence, therefore, that wo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT