Kearney v. State
| Decision Date | 08 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 74507,74507 |
| Citation | 360 S.E.2d 633,184 Ga.App. 64 |
| Parties | KEARNEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bradfield M. Shealy, Quitman, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of endangering a security interest and he appeals.
Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motions for a directed verdict of acquittal and a new trial because the State failed to show that the bank involved had a valid security interest in the property appellant had pledged as collateral.
The evidence disclosed that in March 1983, appellant obtained a six-month loan from the Bank of Quitman and gave the bank a list of tools which were pledged as collateral for the loan. The bank prepared a financing statement showing the bank as the secured party and appellant as the debtor; the financing statement was recorded with the clerk of the Superior Court of Brooks County and contained a block showing that it covered "Tools & Equip in List Att." However, no list was in fact attached to the financing statement that was filed and recorded, although copies of the financing statement and an itemized list of the tools covered by the financing statement were kept in the bank's files.
At the end of six months appellant paid the interest due and renewed the note for another six months. When he was unable to pay the principal at the end of the latter period, A.C. Lowe, the bank officer handling the loan, suggested that appellant make the loan an installment loan payable on a monthly basis. Appellant agreed and signed a promissory note for $9,513.60, payable in monthly installments over a period of 48 months. In a block entitled "SECURITY INTEREST" on the note signed by appellant was the notation "List of tools in Exhibit 'A' In Financing Statement dated 3-29-83 File 83-258 and recorded in Public Records in Brooks Co."
Appellant made only two monthly payments on the note, and after he had missed three or four payments, Lowe talked to appellant and asked him where the tools were stored. Appellant informed Lowe that the tools were stored on a farm in Brooks County and gave Lowe directions to the farm. When Lowe went to the farm the tools were missing from the cabin in which they had been stored, and the tools have never been located. Ted Harrell, a State witness, testified that he had sold the tools to appellant, and at the time of the sale they were stored in a locked cabin on the farm to which Lowe went to retrieve the tools. Harrell also testified that appellant did not have access to the cabin, as Harrell (lessee of the farm) and the owner of the farm had the only keys. When Harrell learned that appellant's tools were missing, Harrell checked the cabin and discovered that a screen had been cut and the door was ajar. In addition to appellant's tools being gone, about two to three thousand dollars worth of Harrell's tools were also missing.
Based on this evidence, appellant was convicted of endangering a security interest by unlawfully,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Peaks, A97A0710
...obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Kearney v. State, 184 Ga.App. 64, 66, 360 S.E.2d 633. Recently our Supreme Court, after holding that both errors not raised and errors not timely raised generally are waived......
-
Smith v. the State (two Cases)., s. S10A1281
...objection had been made in the trial court. See also Putnam v. State, 231 Ga.App. 190(3), 498 S.E.2d 340 (1998) (same); Kearney v. State, 184 Ga.App. 64, 66, 360 S.E.2d 633 (1987) (same). Of particular importance is the fact that Almond involved neither death penalty issues nor any violatio......
-
Putnam v. State
...S.E.2d 386 (1989) (appellant failed to object to evidence of guilty plea; codefendant objected and won reversal); Kearney v. State, 184 Ga.App. 64, 360 S.E.2d 633 (1987) (Almond rule applied on appeal although appellant did not assert general grounds when State failed to prove essential ele......
-
Ryals v. State
...the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings. This court is authorized to consider the error. Kearney v. State, 184 Ga.App. 64, 66, 360 S.E.2d 633. (2) The U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416, considered the admissib......
-
The Child Witness
...that the defendant's veracity was under attack. 21. People v. Badour, 421 N.W.2d 624 (Mich. App. 1988). 22. State v. Fletcher, 360 S.E. 2d 633 (N.C. 1988); Hicks, supra, note 9. 23. Bowers, supra, note 7 at 523. 24. Id. at 525. See note 26 infra for full text of statute. 25. CRE 803(1), 803......