Ingram v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31285,31285 |
| Parties | Albert Denver INGRAM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert M. Bearden, Jr., Macon, for appellant.
Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of escaping confinement after conviction, and armed robbery and aggravated assault during the escape.
1. Assuming that proper objection was made and ruled upon and that appellant was dressed in 'identifiable prison clothes' (neither of which is clear from the record), we find harmless error since appellant was being tried for escape and other crimes in connection with the escape. Wiggins v. Hopper, 235 Ga. 85, 218 S.E.2d 826 (1975); Krist v. State, 133 Ga.App. 197, 210 S.E.2d 381 (1974). See Estelle v. Williams, 425, U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976).
2. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior conviction for armed robbery since proof of lawful confinement was a necessary element in proving the crime of escape. Code Ann. § 26-2501; Dixon v. State, 234 Ga. 157, 215 S.E.2d 5 (1975).
3. There was no error in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on the charges of armed robbery and aggravated assault. There was ample evidence to support the conviction for these offenses.
4. The other enumerations are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except GUNTER, J., who concurs in the judgment only.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vowell v. State, 69660
... ... State, 127 Ga.App. 660, 194 S.E.2d 675 (1972). Even had defense counsel properly preserved this as error for appeal, however, it was necessary for the state to introduce evidence of a prior conviction in order to prove the elements of the offense of escape. OCGA § 16-10-52; Ingram v. State, 237 Ga. 613, 229 S.E.2d 416 (1976). Even though such evidence may incidentally place the defendant's character in issue, it is well settled that competent evidence is admissible which only incidentally places character in issue. Wyatt v. State, 206 Ga. 613, 57 S.E.2d 914 (1950). See ... ...
-
Adkins v. State
...in Prather v. State, 247 Ga. 789, 790(2), 279 S.E.2d 697. The Supreme Court holding therein that it was analogous to Ingram v. State, 237 Ga. 613, 614(2), 229 S.E.2d 416, and did not impermissibly put his character in issue as same was a necessary element of the state's proof as to the crim......
- Ellis v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah
-
Barton v. State
... ... 1. Appellant contends that he should not have been tried before a jury in prison garb because his appearance unduly prejudiced the jury against him. Since appellant was being tried for escape, there was no harm in trying him in his prison uniform. Ingram v. State, 237 Ga. 613(1), 229 S.E.2d 416 (1976); Krist v. State, 133 Ga.App. 197(1), 210 S.E.2d 381 (1974) ... 2. We do, however, find merit in appellant's remaining enumeration of error. The record reflects that the venire in this case consisted of 48 persons, five of whom were ... ...