Hussey v. State
| Decision Date | 02 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A1191,A92A1191 |
| Citation | 206 Ga.App. 122,424 S.E.2d 374 |
| Parties | HUSSEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Donald C. Turner, Roswell, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, Solicitor, Benjamin M. First, Clifford L. Granger, Jr., Asst. Sols., for appellee.
Peter Hussey was found guilty of two counts of simple battery and one count of battery at a non-jury trial, and he appeals.
1. Appellant was charged in the accusation with two counts of simple battery, OCGA § 16-5-23(a)(1) () and (a)(2) (intentionally causing physical harm), and with the offense of battery, OCGA § 16-5-23.1 (), all arising out of a confrontation he had with Mary Catherine Partridge on December 2, 1990. The State concurs with appellant that the trial court erred by sentencing appellant on all three counts in the accusation, rather than merging the two counts of simple battery with the battery, given that the evidence at trial established that each crime was established by proof of the same facts, except that the battery charge required proof that the defendant caused visible bodily harm. See OCGA §§ 16-1-6(1), 16-1-7. See generally Kelley v. State, 201 Ga.App. 343, 344(1), 411 S.E.2d 276 (1991). Accordingly, this appeal is remanded to the trial court with direction to vacate the convictions on the simple battery counts and sentence appellant solely on the battery count. See Division 2, infra.
2. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for battery. OCGA § 16-5-23.1 provides that a person commits the offense of battery when he intentionally causes "visible bodily harm to another," which is defined as "bodily harm capable of being perceived by a person other than the victim and may include, but is not limited to ... substantial bruises to body parts." Id. at (b).
At trial, Partridge testified that she went to appellant's home to recover a radar detector belonging to her father that had been left in a vehicle driven by Partridge's boyfriend, an employee of appellant, when appellant had retrieved the vehicle. Partridge testified that after appellant told her he would return the radar detector only in exchange for a radio in the possession of Partridge's boyfriend, he invited her inside his home so that she could use the telephone to contact her boyfriend. Partridge was not able to locate her boyfriend. She testified that although appellant then ordered her off the property, he allowed her to remain to place a call to the boyfriend's father, William F. Haggerty. Partridge testified that while appellant and Haggerty spoke, she saw the vehicle through the door to the garage and stepped into the garage to see if the radar detector was in the vehicle. She testified that appellant grabbed her, and when she jerked away he grabbed her again and threw her to the ground. He then pushed her out of the garage by holding onto one of her arms while prodding her with his foot. The force of the physical contact left Partridge badly bruised on both her upper arms and on one knee. Photographs showing the bruising were admitted into evidence.
Haggerty testified that in his conversation with app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...In fact, C.T.'s injuries are comparable to those found sufficient to support a conviction for battery. See Hussey v. State, 206 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 424 S.E.2d 374 (1992) (bruising caused by forceful prodding with foot); Danzis v. State, 198 Ga.App. 136, 137-138, 400 S.E.2d 671 (1990) (red ......
-
Cupe v. State
...Cupe guilty of battery beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, supra. See Hussey v. State, 206 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 424 S.E.2d 374 (1992). 2. We also reject Cupe's argument that the trial court erred in ruling that the victim was competent and "availab......
-
Meja v. State
...307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See Basu v. State, 228 Ga.App. 591, 592(1), 492 S.E.2d 329 (1997); Hussey v. State, 206 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 424 S.E.2d 374 (1992); Lyman, 2. In his second enumeration of error, Meja asserts the trial court erred in determining that Ikwuakam's moth......
-
Allen v. State, A94A0873
...a reasonable doubt under the standard in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Hussey v. State, 206 Ga.App. 122(2), 424 S.E.2d 374 (1992). Judgment BIRDSONG, P.J., and BLACKBURN, J., concur. ...