Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 75312,75312 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
B.J. Smith, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Barbara Conroy, Nelly F. Withers, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Jeffrey Scott Hughes brings this appeal from his conviction and sentence of armed robbery and possession of cocaine. Held:
At the request of the jury, the trial court recharged them as to the crimes of robbery and of armed robbery as defined by the Code, OCGA §§ 16-8-40(a) and 16-8-41(a). A juror then inquired: "Does the handgun have to actually be in view and pointed at the victim?" After some discussion with the juror and with counsel, the trial court determined that the point of inquiry was whether the weapon had to be visible in order for the alleged conduct to be armed robbery as opposed to robbery by intimidation. The trial court charged "that the weapon does not have to be visible as far as being in the hand of or shown to the victim by the accused" in order to convict him of armed robbery. Defendant's sole enumeration of error challenges the correctness of his charge.
(Indention omitted.) Maddox v. State, 174 Ga.App. 728, 729-730, 330 S.E.2d 911 (1985); Cook v. State, 179 Ga.App. 610(1), 347 S.E.2d 664 (1986); Doby v. State, 173 Ga.App. 348(1), 326 S.E.2d 506 (1985). It is thus apparent that the legislature intended OCGA § 16-8-41 to encompass armed robbers who have concealed offensive weapons in their pockets or under wraps or other devices.
In light of the foregoing principles, we find persuasive the holding of the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District in People v. Coleman, 128 Ill.App.3d 538(2), 83 Ill.Dec. 857, 470 N.E.2d 1277 (1984): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. State
...compare Miles v. State, 261 Ga. 232, 234(1b), 403 S.E.2d 794; Johnson v. State, 195 Ga.App. 56, 57(1), 392 S.E.2d 280; Hughes v. State, 185 Ga.App. 40, 41, 363 S.E.2d 336 (a physical manifestation of the weapon or evidence from which its presence may be inferred, concomitant to the taking, ......
-
Terry v. State
...McRae v. State, 221 Ga.App. 414, 471 S.E.2d 532 (1996); Alford v. State, 200 Ga.App. 483, 408 S.E.2d 497 (1991); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga.App. 40, 41, 363 S.E.2d 336 (1987). 2. The second enumeration is that the court erred in allowing Dr. McKee, a forensic psychiatrist who examined Terry pu......
-
Nelson v. State
...presence of a weapon may be inferred is required. Howard v. State, 201 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 410 S.E.2d 782 (1991); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga.App. 40, 41, 363 S.E.2d 336 (1987). When the weapon is unseen, "[t]he question is whether the defendant's acts created a `reasonable apprehension on the......
-
Smith v. State, A94A2042
...manifestation of a weapon is required, ... or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred." ' Hughes v. State, 185 Ga.App. 40, 41 (363 SE2d 336) (1987), quoting People v. Coleman, 128 Ill.App.3d 538(2) (470 NE2d 1277) (1984)." Tate v. State, 191 Ga.App. 727, 728(2), 38......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue, Laura D. Hogue, and Marcus S. Henson
...250 Ga. App. 226, 227, 551 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2001). 180. 250 Ga. App. 226, 551 S.E.2d 84 (2001). 181. Id. at 227, 551 S.E.2d at 85. 182. 185 Ga. App. 40, 363 S.E.2d 336 (1987). 183. 195 Ga. App. 56, 392 S.E.2d 280 (1990). 184. 246 Ga. App. 585, 539 S.E.2d 236 (2000). 185. Id. at 585-86, 539 S.......