Moody v. State

Decision Date19 October 1976
Docket NumberNo. 31543,31543
CitationMoody v. State, 229 S.E.2d 619, 237 Ga. 775 (Ga. 1976)
PartiesJames Christopher MOODY v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Keenan & Calcagno, Don C. Keenan, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Donald J. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Kirby G. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

Appellant was indicted by a grand jury in Fulton County for the armed robberies of the eleven employees of an insurance company on July 7, 1975, at a branch office of the company. In February, 1976, there was a jury trial on all 11 counts and appellant was found guilty on four counts, He received a sentence of 20 years for each conviction to run concurrently. The present appeal followed after the trial court's denial of appellant's amended motion for a new trial.

We reverse and order a new trial because the state was permitted over defense objection to introduce evidence of an independent crime without showing that appellant was a perpetrator of the independent crime and that there was a sufficient similarity or connection between the crimes to make the evidence admissible. Bacon v. State, 209 Ga. 261, 71 S.E.2d 615 (1952). Cf. Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974).

The only similarity we find between the crimes for which the appellant was being tried and the independent crime is that both occurrences involved armed robbery with guns. The insurance company office robberies took place at midday on July 7th by three young black males who departed the scene in a white Continental automobile. The victims were physically assaulted, moved around inside the premises and tied up in several rooms. The victims were robbed of their personal possessions. The independent crime involved an armed robbery of a motel several miles away at night on July 30th by two black males apparently using a blue Plymouth automobile to leave the premises. There was no physical assault on the victims and they were neither moved around nor tied up by the robbers. No personal items belonging to the victims of this robbery were taken. The cash box of the motel was the only thing stolen. There are other dissimilarities which need not be detailed. However, of significance is the lack of positive proof that appellant was a perpetrator of the motel robbery. It is true that the state's evidence placed him on the scene (he was staying at the motel as a customer), but the evidence fails to connect him sufficiently to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Eckman v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 2001
    ...were connected and which were committed in other counties in the 24 hours preceding the murders of the Gileses.2 Citing Moody v. State, 237 Ga. 775, 229 S.E.2d 619 (1976), appellant maintains the State was erroneously permitted to introduce evidence of independent crimes without showing tha......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 18 Julio 1980
    ...Code § 38-202. We conclude that the fact that Bacon is still viable can only have been ignored, in spite of cases like Moody v. State, 237 Ga. 775, 229 S.E.2d 619 (1976), reversing an armed robbery conviction because evidence of another "armed robbery with guns" not otherwise connected with......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Noviembre 1980
    ...or logically connected to a railroad car burglary by a group of unarmed men wearing overalls as disguises. But see Moody v. State, 237 Ga. 775, 229 S.E.2d 619 (1976). Bacon v. State, 209 Ga. 261, 71 S.E.2d 615 (1952), is one of this state's leading cases on this subject. In Bacon, the defen......
  • Burks v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 13 Marzo 1985
    ...it is unlikely that the prejudice could have been overcome. Therefore, I cannot say that the error was harmless (Moody v. State, 237 Ga. 775, 229 S.E.2d 619 (1976)), and I must respectfully ...
  • Get Started for Free