J. E. T. v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58081,58081 |
| Parties | J. E. T. v. STATE of Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas L. Williams, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Kathryn A. Workman, Juvenile Court Sol., Susan Brooks, Juvenile Court Asst. Sol. of DeKalb Co., Decatur, Bryant Huff, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
This case involves a juvenile delinquency petition filed against a juvenile, age 16, alleging three counts of delinquency. Count 1 contends he committed the "offense of Criminal Attempt to Commit Armed Robbery" in that he entered a Majik Market with the intent to commit a theft in the immediate presence of an employee of the market with the use of an offensive weapon but was interrupted by a police officer who entered the market while said child was inside and in possession of a stocking mask and a .22 caliber pistol. Count 2 contends he committed the "offense of Carrying a Concealed Weapon" with reference to the .22 caliber pistol carried on his person not fully open to view. Count 3 contends he committed the "offense of Carrying a Pistol Without a License" in that he did not have a valid license issued for the carrying of a .22 caliber pistol. An adjudicatory hearing was held in the Juvenile Court of Gwinnett County where the alleged delinquent acts occurred, at which time Count 3 was found insufficient and dismissed. The other two counts were sustained, and the juvenile was held to be delinquent within the meaning of the law.
The entire case was then transferred to the Juvenile Court of DeKalb County for final disposition since the juvenile resided in DeKalb County. At the dispositional hearing the juvenile was found to be in need of treatment and rehabilitation on December 7, 1978. He was placed on probation and supervision of the court until his 17th birthday. The juvenile appeals. Held :
1. The first enumeration of error contends that the "evidence was insufficient to convict as to Count I" (the criminal attempt to commit armed robbery). Counsel for the juvenile contends that there "was no attempt to commit the crime" as same was abandoned before any overt act occurred. The juvenile testified in his own behalf and on cross-examination made certain admissions that he and another friend had intended to rob the store, entering it on two occasions but in each instance departed without any overt act occurring. In preparation for the robbery they wore caps known as toboggan caps. Underneath these caps they wore stockings (obtained from the juvenile's mother's drawer) which they pulled over their hair. The stockings could be pulled down over their faces. They drove to the vicinity of the store in a van and parked it in an apartment complex by backing it up to a wall so the vehicle could not be observed. This juvenile had found a pistol which his friend (the other young man) knew he possessed. When they first entered the store the other young man had the pistol. While in the store they picked up a six pack of beer but put it back and departed. This juvenile admits the purpose for having the pistol was to use it to hold up the place to get money. There were a lot of people in the store, he became "real scared" and had "second thoughts about it." See Code § 26-1003.
They then entered the store for the second time at which time the other young man put the gun in the juvenile's pocket. They again picked up a six pack of beer, had a short conversation in which this juvenile testified that he didn't want to do it and they "proceeded to leave." He denied that he ever pulled the toboggan cap or the stocking cap underneath down over his eyes although the police officer testified that he did. This quantum of proof would be sufficient to authorize the fact finder to find from a preponderance of the evidence that this juvenile had abandoned the attempt. See Clark v. State, 224 Ga. 311(1), 312, 161 S.E.2d 836; Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574, 576(3), 198 S.E.2d 289; Gibbons v. State, 136 Ga.App. 609, 611(3), 222 S.E.2d 55. However, the trier of fact found otherwise.
Because of the suspicious nature of the two people in the store the police had been notified. Receiving a suspicious person call, a uniformed police officer drove to the store and observed the two young men inside wearing stocking caps. This officer was later joined by other officers. The first officer to arrive testified that he observed the juvenile pull down the stocking cap "with both hands," that is, "pull it down to the nose level." He also testified that the juvenile This officer then entered the store and "observed the larger of the two subjects put the stocking cap back up on his head," the other suspect replaced the six pack of beer in the cooler, and the two started to leave the store. As they walked up through the aisle this witness further testified the juvenile had The police officer then arrested them at the front door, asked the juvenile to remove his hand from his pocket at which time he did "observe the full end of the pistol butt sticking out of his pocket."
A person is not presumed to act with criminal intention. However, the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted. See Code § 26-605. J. A. T. v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goss v. State, 65022
...concealed" (Poole v. State, 159 Ga.App. 792, 285 S.E.2d 205 (1981)) such that it is "not obvious as a weapon" (J.E.T. v. State of Ga., 151 Ga.App. 836(2), 261 S.E.2d 752 (1979)). Accord, Holtzendorf v. State, 146 Ga.App. 823(3), 247 S.E.2d 599 (1978), where the pistol was concealed by the d......
-
Adams v. State
...that the jury could find that substantial steps toward the armed robbery had been taken. Howell, supra. Accord J.E.T. v. State, 151 Ga.App. 836, 838 (1), 261 S.E.2d 752 (1979). Thus, appellant's motion for directed verdict was properly denied as the evidence was sufficient to enable any rat......
-
In re Interest of M. F.
...save that of guilt unless the adjudication of delinquency is unsupportable as a matter of law.").12 See J. E. T. v. State , 151 Ga. App. 836, 838 (1), 261 S.E.2d 752 (1979) ("A person is not presumed to act with criminal intention. However, the trier of facts may find such intention upon co......