Jones v. State, 60589
| Decision Date | 16 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60589,60589 |
| Parties | JONES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Owen J. Mullinix, Jr., Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, III, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of burglary. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal and in denying his motion for new trial. In particular, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty because it was entirely circumstantial and did not exclude every hypothesis save that of his guilt.
The testimony and documentary evidence introduced at trial on behalf of the state showed the following: The burglary occurred at a warehouse and the point of entry and exit was an "awning type window." This window was located on the side of the warehouse and faced a narrow alley 3 to 4 feet wide not ordinarily used by the public. Prior to the alleged burglary, this window had been locked with a chain and latch. A witness in charge of the warehouse testified that this particular window was rarely ever opened. A qualified expert testified that the four latent fingerprints lifted from the interior portion of the window were those of appellant. The police officer who actually lifted the fingerprints from the window could not be certain as to the position of the hand of the person who made the prints or as to the length of time the prints had been on the window. While denying that the fingerprints were his, appellant testified that on past occasions he had been in the vicinity of the burglarized warehouse and that, although possible, he did not recall walking through the alley upon which the warehouse window faced.
Barnett v. State, 153 Ga.App. 430(1), 265 S.E.2d 348 (1980).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...been impressed at the time the crime was committed. Barnett v. State, 153 Ga.App. 430(1) (265 S.E.2d 348) (1980)." Jones v. State, 156 Ga.App. 823, 824, 275 S.E.2d 712 (1980). " 'However, ... circumstantial evidence must exclude only reasonable inferences and hypotheses and it is not necess......
-
Commonwealth v. French
...in question was not marked or photographed.9 Accord State v. Thorpe, 188 Conn. 645, 648–650, 453 A.2d 88 (1982) ; Jones v. State, 156 Ga.App. 823, 824, 275 S.E.2d 712 (1980) ; State v. Watson, 224 N.J.Super. at 361, 540 A.2d 875. See United States v. Talbert, 710 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir.1983......
-
State v. Lucca, 23140-5-I
...v. Carter, supra 578 P.2d at 992 (quoting State v. Brady, 2 Ariz.App. 210, 213, 407 P.2d 399 (1965)). Similarly, in Jones v. State, 156 Ga.App. 823, 275 S.E.2d 712 (1980), a burglary occurred at a warehouse. Four fingerprints corresponding to those of defendant were found on the inside of w......
-
Glover v. State, 70436
...hypothesis save that the fingerprints were impressed at the time the crime was committed is a question for the jury. Jones v. State, 156 Ga.App. 823, 824, 275 S.E.2d 712. However, in the instant case, we have circumstantial evidence of guilt in addition to the fingerprints of defendant foun......