Loftin v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27586,27586 |
| Citation | 195 S.E.2d 402,230 Ga. 92 |
| Parties | Willie Edward LOFTIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Morris H. Rosenberg, Joel M. Feldman, Isaac Jenrette, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Daniel I. MacIntyre, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant waived jury trial and was found guilty on indictments charging him with rape, and armed robbery, misdemeanor pistol, and auto theft. The first three indictments grew out of an occurrence on September 9, 1971, in which the state's evidence showed that he forced himself at gunpoint into his victim's car at 1:00 a.m. near Underground Atlanta, drove her to a secluded spot where he twice raped her at gunpoint, and took some twenty-three dollars from her purse. When he stopped at a service station for gas, the victim grabbed his pistol, jumped from the car and called the police. The auto theft indictment on which he was convicted arose from a separate event on September 25, 1971. The defendant appeals, enumerating error on the ground that defendant was entitled to a separate trial on the auto theft indictment and that the state failed to prove venue in Fulton County in the rape and related cases. Held:
1. The first enumeration of error is without merit since the record fails to show that a proper objection was made in the trial court to the state proceeding on all the indictments in one trial. Defendant's counsel merely stated that objection was made The court overruled the motion and the cases proceeded to trial.
That the state could proceed on the first three indictments, as the defendant concedes, is in our opinion obviously controlled by the provisions of § 26-506 of the Criminal Code requiring a single prosecution for multiple offenses involving the same conduct known to the prosecuting officer and within the jurisdiction of a single court, except where the trial judge in the interest of justice may order separate trials for one or more of the charges. See, in this connection, Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76, 179 S.E.2d 76; Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 182 S.E.2d 779; Steele v. State, 227 Ga. 653, 182 S.E.2d 475.
Assuming arguendo that a proper demand was made for a separate trial on the indictment for auto theft, an offense not arising from the same conduct involved in the other indictments, we recognize the rule that a defendant cannot be tried simultaneously under two or more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alderman v. State
...773, 774, 225 S.E.2d 421 (1976). Further circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be used to establish venue. Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 94, 195 S.E.2d 402 (1973). Venue is a question to be decided by the jury and its decision will not be set aside so long as there is any evidence to......
-
Jones v. State
...36 S.E.2d 92 (1945); Daniel, Handbook on Criminal Evidence, § 1-3 (1998). 13. See, e.g., Graves, supra; Minter, supra; Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 195 S.E.2d 402 (1973); Womble v. State, 107 Ga. 666, 33 S.E. 630 (1899); Bass v. State, 238 Ga.App. 503, 519 S.E.2d 294 (1999); Frisbey v. Stat......
-
Taylor v. State
..."all the time" defendant was there. Circumstantial, as well as direct evidence, may be used to establish venue. Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 94(2), 195 S.E.2d 402 (1973). Where there is no conflicting evidence, slight evidence is sufficient. Aldridge v. State, 236 Ga. 773, 774(1), 225 S.E.2......
-
Jones v. State
...773, 774, 225 S.E.2d 421 (1976). Further circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be used to establish venue. Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 94, 195 S.E.2d 402 (1973). Venue is a question to be decided by the jury and its decision will not be set aside as long as there is any evidence to......