Mooney v. State, 45547
| Decision Date | 15 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45547,No. 3,45547,3 |
| Citation | 178 S.E.2d 281,122 Ga.App. 650 |
| Parties | Charles D. MOONEY v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William Holley, Marietta, for appellant.
Ben F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Marietta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. On trial of the defendant for burglary, testimony of the owner that all doors and windows were locked when she left the house, and that as to the carport door the inside door was locked with a key and the screen door unlocked, but that when she returned the screen door was locked and the inside door was standing open, plus proof that no authorized person had entered the house in the meantime, authorizes inference of breaking under Code § 26-2401. There need be no physical violence done at the point of entry, and the breaking may consist of unlawfully unlocking a locked door. Pritchett v. State, 92 Ga. 33(1), 18 S.E. 350.
2. The testimony about the event preceding the apprehension of the defendant is as follows: Mrs. Blake's residence was burglarized on January 22, 1968, and a valuable collection of Steuben glassware was taken from a cabinet the front glass of which had been broken out. The glass in falling partially concealed a single piece, which was not taken. An investigating officer received telephone call 28 days later and immediately went to an apartment occupied by Nichols. Mrs. Nichols let him in and turned over to him a container with the missing pieces of glassware carefully wrapped in newspaper bearing the caption 'Atlanta Constitution' and dates of January 22 and 23. The officer then waited in his car and approximately 30 minutes later Mooney drove up with Nichols in the car and parked behind the house. The witness drove his car back of the Mooney vehicle to block it and then arrested the occupants. At the laboratory the glass was unwrapped, the witness tore off and kept the identifying names and dates on the newspaper, had each piece dusted, and found one latent fingerprint on the bottom of a vase. The print was lifted, sent to FBI files in Washington with the fingerprints of the defendant, and identified as a print of his left little finger. The witnesses involved were qualified as experts and sufficiently traced each stage in the identification of the print. The defendant made timely objection to the introduction of the fingerprints, the newspaper strips, and a photograph of the piece of glassware which had not been stolen.
(a) The fingerprint evidence in question is admissible. See Anderson v. State, 120 Ga.App. 147(4), 169 S.E.2d 629 and Anthony v. State, 85 Ga.App. 119, 121, 68 S.E.2d 150.
(b) The objection to the introduction of the torn newspaper strips was that they were not the complete wrapping. Since they were introduced only for the purpose of showing that the glassware had been wrapped with paper dated the day of the burglary and the day afterward, and the newspaper was otherwise irrelevant to the issues being tried, the fact that the remaining parts of the paper were not in evidence was not prejudicial to the defendant.
(c) The piece of Steuben glassware which was overlooked was immaterial to the investigation and its admission in evidence, if error, was completely harmless.
3. It is obvious that the only evidence connecting this defendant with the theft of the glassware is his fingerprint on the retrieved vase. The defendant was sworn and testified that he had visited the Nichols apartment earlier on the day of his arrest; that To arrive at its verdict the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Interest of H.A., a Child.
...where evidence showed that defendant was taken to the crime scene before fingerprint evidence was collected); Mooney v. State, 122 Ga.App. 650, 178 S.E.2d 281 (1970) (fingerprint evidence insufficient to sustain burglary conviction where evidence showed that defendant recently and lawfully ......
-
Barnett v. State
...only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. See Miller v. State, 122 Ga.App. 553, 554, 177 S.E.2d 838; Mooney v. State, 122 Ga.App. 650, 178 S.E.2d 281; Brown v. State, 133 Ga.App. 56, 58(4), 209 S.E.2d 721; Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga.App. 54, 55, 220 S.E.2d 66, 2. On April 1......
-
Barnes v. State
...was shown. See Collins v. State, 239 Ga. 45, 235 S.E.2d 523; Barnett v. State, 153 Ga.App. 430(1), 265 S.E.2d 348; Mooney v. State, 122 Ga.App. 650, 178 S.E.2d 281. Compare Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga.App. 54, 220 S.E.2d 66; Brown v. State, 133 Ga.App. 56, 58-59(4, 5), 209 S.E.2d 721. The prese......
-
Vaughn v. State, 50771
...could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. Miller v. State, 122 Ga.App. 553, 177 S.E.2d 838; Mooney v. State, 122 Ga.App. 650, 178 S.E.2d 281; Brown v. State, 133 Ga.App. 56, 209 S.E.2d 721. Here appellant was brought to the scene by the police at a time when he was......