Litmon v. State, 75928
| Decision Date | 04 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 75928,75928 |
| Citation | 186 Ga.App. 762,368 S.E.2d 530 |
| Parties | LITMON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Carl Greenberg, Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Helen A. Pryles, Patricia G. Higginbotham, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant was tried before a jury on an indictment which charged him with burglary. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the jury's verdict.
1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that the State produced sufficient evidence at trial from which a rational trior of fact could have found proof of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. After retiring to deliberate, the jury returned to ask the trial court the following question: "If the person is not the person that entered the building, but was an accomplice to [the one who entered], is that person guilty?" In response to this inquiry, the trial court gave the jury an additional instruction on the legal principle of parties to a crime. An instruction on this legal principle had not been included in the original charge given to the jury at the close of the case. Appellant objected to the giving of the charge and moved for a mistrial. The grounds for appellant's objection and motion were that the issue of whether appellant was a party to the burglary rather than the principal had not been raised at trial, that neither the State nor appellant had requested the charge and that appellant had not been given the opportunity to argue the issue to the jury. The trial court overruled appellant's objection and denied his motion for mistrial. The trial court's ruling is enumerated as error.
" (Emphasis supplied.) Turner v. State, 178 Ga.App. 888, 890 (3), 345 S.E.2d 99 (1986). Accordingly, it is immaterial that neither the State nor appellant had requested the charge on parties to a crime. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waddell v. State, A05A1961.
...Putnam v. State, 250 Ga. 418, 419(2), 297 S.E.2d 286 (1982); Payne v. State, supra at 318(1)(b), 464 S.E.2d 884; Litmon v. State, 186 Ga.App. 762(2), 368 S.E.2d 530 (1988). Waddell's argument that it was error not to charge the entire statute is also without merit. OCGA § 16-2-20(b)(2) and ......
-
Green v. State, A92A1746
...888, 889-890, 345 S.E.2d 99; Barraza v. State, 149 Ga.App. 738, 739, 256 S.E.2d 48), and could do so sua sponte. Litmon v. State, 186 Ga.App. 762, 763, 368 S.E.2d 530. Thus, the only issue is whether the trial court was precluded from doing so because the jury advised that it had reached an......
-
Benjamin v. State
...jury instructions.” (Citation omitted.) Holloman v. State, 291 Ga. 338, 344(7), 729 S.E.2d 344 (2012). See also Litmon v. State, 186 Ga.App. 762, 763(2), 368 S.E.2d 530 (1988) (“the necessity, extent, and character of any supplemental instructions to the jury are matters within the sound di......
-
Britton v. the State.
...Persons.” See Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases (3d & 4th eds.), § 1.42.11. 10. See Litmon v. State, 186 Ga.App. 762–763(2), 368 S.E.2d 530 (1988). 11. See Davenport v. State, 283 Ga. 171, 172–173(4), 656 S.E.2d 844 (2008) (it is not necessary in considering a cha......