Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 15 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64164,64164 |
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 206,163 Ga.App. 526 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JACKSON v. The STATE. |
Walker Chandler, Zebulon, for appellant.
Johnnie Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., Thomaston, Paschal A. English, Jr., J. David Fowler, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Armed robbery and aggravated assault. Appellant appeals on the general grounds. He also contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the aggravated assault charge and by allowing testimony concerning a pretrial identification at a lineup.
1. Ambrish Albritton owned a grocery store near Zebulon, Georgia. He was standing outside the store when appellant and another man, Womble, drove their car about 25 yards past the store and parked. Appellant raised the hood of the car and Womble went in the store, followed by Albritton. Shortly thereafter appellant entered the store; Womble pulled a gun and ordered Albritton to lie down on the floor. He did so, and while Womble held a gun on him (Albritton), appellant took the money from the cash register, money in sacks beneath the cash register on a shelf and Albritton's money from his pocket. A truck driver, Edge, came in the store while the robbery was in progress. Womble fired a shot at Edge, and he and Albritton were then locked in the bathroom. Appellant and Womble left and were apprehended a short time later.
This evidence is more than sufficient to support the findings. Appellant contends the evidence is not sufficient to support the aggravated assault charge as he did not shoot at Edge, and the evidence did not show that he had a gun in his possession. Code Ann. § 26-801(a) provides: "Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime." "One who intentionally aids or abets the commission of a crime by another is a party to the crime and equally guilty with the principal." Bell v. State, 156 Ga.App. 190, 274 S.E.2d 153 (1980). There is no question that appellant was a participant in the armed robbery, and the aggravated assault occurred during the course of the robbery. Thus, appellant's actions can be construed as aiding and abetting in the crime. See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 243 Ga. 46, 47(1), 252 S.E.2d 431 (1979). Appellant did not attempt to withdraw from the crime; on the contrary, he drove the vehicle away from the scene and when the police attempted to stop the car, appellant led them on a high speed chase until the car ran off the road and was wrecked. Under such circumstances he can be found guilty as a party to the felonious conduct of Womble. Bell, supra. Based on the foregoing, we find that a rational trier of fact could find from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt beyond a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. State, 70355
...who aids or abets the commission of a crime by another is a party to the crime and equally guilty with the principal. Jackson v. State, 163 Ga.App. 526, 527, 295 S.E.2d 206. Although defendant was not involved in all of the acts, his actions as an aider and abettor in the commission of some......
-
Shorter v. State
...are based on his conduct that aided and abetted others who also committed aggravated assault. OCGA § 16-2-20; Jackson v. State, 163 Ga.App. 526, 527(1), 295 S.E.2d 206 (1982). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that a high-speed automobile chase began when a......
-
Lunz v. State
...v. State, 242 Ga. 893(1), 252 S.E.2d 394 (1979); Kimbro v. State, 152 Ga.App. 893, 264 S.E.2d 327 (1980). See also Jackson v. State, 163 Ga.App. 526(1), 295 S.E.2d 206 (1982). 2. Appellants' remaining enumerations of error challenge the denial of their respective motions to sever their tria......
-
Wilson v. State
...307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); [Cit.]" Parham v. State, supra, 166 Ga.App. p. 856, 305 S.E.2d 599. Accord Jackson v. State, 163 Ga.App. 526(1), 295 S.E.2d 206 (1982). It follows that appellant is not entitled to a new trial on grounds of insufficiency of the 3. Appellant's statement,......