Mills v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 51610,51610,1 |
| Citation | 223 S.E.2d 498,137 Ga.App. 305 |
| Parties | J. S. MILLS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Spence & Knighton, Virgil C. Spence, Marietta, for appellant.
George W. Darden, Dist. Atty., W. Michael B. Stoddard, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marietta, for appellee.
Appellant Mills and co-defendant McTaggert were jointly indicted for the burglary of the Park Street Elementary School in Cobb County. They were tried before a jury and both were convicted. Mills alone appeals from the denial of his amended motion for a new trial. Held:
1. Appellant urges his conviction be reversed on the general grounds claiming the state's failure to rebut his entrapment defense. It is undisputed that appellant was a police informer whose information previously supplied to Cobb County authorities had led to arrests and convictions of burglars. What is disputed, however, is whether appellant was acting under police orders or on his own when he was apprehended at the scene of the school burglary in this case.
Appellant testified that, prior to the commission of the offense, he had told Officer Solomon of the Marietta Police Department the details of the planned burglary. He contended he had been used as an informer continuously up until the time of his arrest and that it was customary for Officer Solomon to allow appellant to escape while arresting the other perpetrators. He further claimed the instant arrest and prosecution was due to the unfortunate circumstance of being apprehended by officers other than Solomon.
Officer Solomon testified in rebuttal for the state. He stated that he had previously accepted information from appellant, but had specifically told him on all occasions not to participate in the criminal ventures. The officer also stated that he had stopped using appellant as an informer several months prior to this offense and that he had been given no advance information concerning the school burglary. This testimony was sufficient to rebut appellant's claim of entrapment. We note, additionally, Solomon's testimony was corroborated by appellant's post-arrest confession wherein appellant admitted his intent to steal a television in the school. Moreover, defendants were apprehended as a result of a silent burglar alarm system rather than a police stakeout, as would have been likely had appellant been acting under police supervision.
On appeal, this court is bound to construe the evidence with every inference and presumption being in favor of upholding the jury's verdict. Bell v. State, 21 Ga.App. 788, 95 S.E. 270; Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146. Accordingly, we find appellant's enumerations of error upon the general grounds to be without merit.
2. Appellant enumerates error upon the trial court's refusal to permit the following two voir dire questions: (1) 'And you understand that the presumption of innocence is in his (defendant's) favor in a criminal case?' (2) 'Do you understand that the burden of proving the defendant guilty-'. Appellant asserts that questions of this sort are proper under Code Ann. § 59-705 and that it was an abuse of discretion to disallow these inquiries.
' In examining a prospective juror, counsel for the accused should not ask technical legal questions in regard to the presumption of innocence, but should confine his questions to those which may illustrate any prejudice of the juror against the accused, or any interest of the juror in the cause.' McNeal v. State, 228 Ga. 633, 636, 187 S.E.2d 271, 273. Similarly, in Stack v. State, 234 Ga. 19, 25(2), 214 S.E.2d 514, it was held that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. State
...asked right now to return a verdict without hearing any evidence from either side, what would your verdict be?"); Mills v. State, 137 Ga.App. 305(2), 223 S.E.2d 498 (1976); Montgomery v. State, 128 Ga.App. 116(1), 195 S.E.2d 784 (1973); the weight to be given the fact that the defendant has......
-
Bradham v. State
...and presumption being in favor of upholding the jury's verdict. Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146; Mills v. State, 137 Ga.App. 305, 306, 223 S.E.2d 498. Where the testimony of the state and that of the defendant is in conflict, the jury is the final arbiter (Crews v. State, 1......
-
Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones
...to construe the evidence with every reasonable inference and presumption in favor of upholding the jury's verdict. Mills v. State, 137 Ga.App. 305(1), 223 S.E.2d 498. Nothing more is acceptable upon appellate review, and we have recently affirmed this point in an FELA case where a railroad ......
-
Redding v. State
...of an officer. The evidence which authorized these convictions, construed so as to uphold these verdicts (Mills v. State, 137 Ga.App. 305(1), 306, 223 S.E.2d 498), reveals the At about 10:00 in the morning on March 20, 1997, City of Atlanta Police Officers Michael Giugliano and A.L. Dorsey,......