Moore v. State, 52003
| Decision Date | 17 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52003,52003,1 |
| Citation | 138 Ga.App. 902,227 S.E.2d 809 |
| Parties | A. W. MOORE et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Hughel Harrison, Lawrenceville, Glyndon C. Pruitt, Buford, for appellants.
W. Bryant Huff, Dist. Atty., K. Dawson Jackson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, for appellee.
The defendants were convicted of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and they appeal. Held:
1. About thirty minutes after the commission of the offense, defendants were arrested and returned to the scene where the victim, a package store operator, identified them. As this lineup was conducted prior to the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings, defendants did not have a right to counsel nor did they have to be advised of any right to counsel. Mitchell v. Smith, 229 Ga. 781(1), 194 S.E.2d 414.
2. Testimony was elicited by cross examination that one of the defendants was required to remove his shirt at the police station. No objection was ever made to this testimony. Consequently, defendant will not be heard to complain of it on appeal.
3. Defendants assert that the court erred in charging the jury that if the jury found that defendants' out-of-court statements were voluntary, 'then you will consider them as evidence . . .' The argument is made that this charge commands the jury to consider the statements as evidence. There is no merit to this contention. This is only a part of the charge as the court continued by stating 'and you will apply the general rules for testing the believeability of witnesses and decide what weight, if any, you give to any, to all or any part of such evidence.' Elsewhere the court charged: 'The jury may believe admissions or incriminatory statements in whole or in part, believing that which they find to be true and rejecting that which they find to be untrue.'
4. The court charged the jury on both armed robbery, the lesser offense of robbery and criminal attempt. The lesser offense of criminal attempt to commit robbery was reasonably raised by the evidence. No error was committed by charging the lesser crime.
5. It is urged that the trial judge erred by questioning witnesses and by injecting his views and opinions and by otherwise influncing the conduct of the course of the trial which deprived defendants of a fair trial. An examination of the ctiations to the transcript where this error was allegedly committed fails to show any judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheek v. State, 67676
...appellate review with reference to the value of the allegation ($800) to meet the proof (greater than $100). See Moore v. State, 138 Ga.App. 902, 903(6), 227 S.E.2d 809. As to the argument that there was a failure of venue, slight evidence is sufficient to establish same where there is no c......
-
Maxwell v. State
...we will apply the general rule that affidavits impeaching the jury's verdict will not be accepted or permitted. Moore v. State, 138 Ga.App. 902, 903(7), 227 S.E.2d 809. We find no error in the denial of the motion for new trial upon this 6. In the last (his first) enumeration of error, appe......
-
Keno v. Alside, Inc.
...error on direct appeal. Pulliam v. State, 236 Ga. 460, 463, 224 S.E.2d 8; Hart v. State, 227 Ga. 171, 179 S.E.2d 346; Moore v. State, 138 Ga.App. 902(2),227 S.E.2d 809. In this case, appellants argue that the trial court erred in forcing them to go to trial on the civil case while a crimina......
-
Selvidge v. State
...raised after conviction either on a motion for new trial or in this court. Hart v. State, 227 Ga. 171, 179 S.E.2d 346; Moore v. State, 138 Ga.App. 902(2), 227 S.E.2d 809. 3. The remaining enumerations of error have all carefully been (a) There is sufficient circumstantial evidence, as suppo......