Peluso v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 52496,52496,2 |
| Parties | S. A. PELUSO, Jr. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gettle & Fraser, Sherman C. Fraser, Atlanta, for appellant.
E. Byron Smith, Dist. Atty., W. Hal Craig, Asst. Dist. Atty., Barnesville, for appellee.
Peluso appeals his conviction of theft by taking in that he stole currency of the United States in excess of $100 (approximately $450) during non-business hours from an unsecured safe located in the business office of the victims. He was sentenced to seven years on probation and to pay a fine of $2,000 and to make restitution in the amount of $500. Peluso enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to grant his motions for a directed verdict of acquittal, the failure of the trial court to give three of his requested charges, and the insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. Held:
1. The last enumeration of error alleging insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict is unsupported by argument or citation of authority as is required by Rule 18(c) of this court (Code Ann. § 24-3618(c)(2)) and is therefore deemed abandoned. Boyd v. State, 133 Ga.App. 136(2), 210 S.E.2d 251; Rogers v. State, 137 Ga.App. 319, 223 S.E.2d 456; Weaver v. State, 137 Ga.App. 470(2), 224 S.E.2d 110.
2. Peluso complains that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal both at the conclusion of the state's case and, later, following the completion of evidence. Stated in simplest terms, the evidence indicates the victims maintained a safe in their business office. In this safe there was a cigar box which contained paper currency, as well as a wooden drawer in which a plastic insert was carried. The insert had partitions for storing several denominations of paper currency as well as loose coins. These containers were secured in the safe. Peluso worked in an adjoining office and had access to a rest room attached to the victims' office space. Peluso was aware that money was kept in the safe. One of the victims testified that Peluso had no occasion to handle either of the currency containers and there is no evidence that Peluso had ever had occasion to reach inside the safe. The evidence reflects that during non-business hours someone entered the office, took the cigar box and plastic insert from within the closed but unsecured safe, removed a sum of about $450 therefrom and left the containers on top of the safe. One fingerprint belonging to Peluso was lifted from the cigar box and a second print lifted from the wooden drawer within the safe. The money was never accounted for nor recovered. Peluso offered substantial alibi evidence to the effect that he was in the constant company of others who during the time in question placed him in places other than the victimized business office as well as evidence offering a partial explanation for the fingerprints.
In reviewing the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict, the proper standard to be utilized by appellate courts is the 'any evidence' test. Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 219 S.E.2d 743; Mitchell v. State, 236 Ga. 251, 257, 223 S.E.2d 650. Furthermore, in passing on the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts are to afford the evidence that view which is most favorable to the state, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict. Morgan v. State, 77 Ga.App. 516, 517, 48 S.E.2d 681; Williams v. State, 129 Ga.App. 103, 107, 198 S.E.2d 683; Maddox v. State, 131 Ga.App. 86(1), 205 S.E.2d 31; Haire v. State, 133 Ga.App. 12, 13, 209 S.E.2d 681; Taylor v. State, 138 Ga.App. 95, 96, 225 S.E.2d 508. Only where there is no conflict in the evidence and a verdict of acquittal is demanded as a matter of law is it error to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal. Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604, 198 S.E.2d 311; Davis v. State, 234 Ga. 730, 732, 218 S.E.2d 20; Allen v. State, 137 Ga.App,. 302, 303, 223 S.E.2d 495. We cannot say that there was no evidence establishing Peluso as the thief of the stolen money. It was not error for the trial court to refuse the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
3. In his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...which is most favorable to the appellee, "for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict." Peluso v. State, 139 Ga.App. 433, 434, 228 S.E.2d 395, 396. The general grounds are without 2. The court did not err in permitting the investigating officer to remain in the cour......
-
Bryan v. State, 56639
...there is "any evidence" to sustain the ruling of the trial court, an appellate court will not disturb his decision. Peluso v. State, 139 Ga.App. 433, 434, 228 S.E.2d 395. There was evidence of value offered by both sides. A security officer for the J. C. Penney outlet store testified that t......
-
Adams v. State
...15, 16, and 17 and these will be considered as abandoned. Rule 18(c)(2) of this Court (Code Ann. § 24-3618(c)(2); Peluso v. State, 139 Ga.App. 433(1), 228 S.E.2d 395 (1976) ). The other seven are considered in the order of their 2. The accused asserts as error number 1 the court's overrulin......
-
Boatright v. State
...8, 10, 220 S.E.2d 39, 41 (1975). Accord, Favors v. State, 145 Ga.App. 864, 868(5), 244 S.E.2d 902 (1978); Peluso v. State, 139 Ga.App. 433, 435(3a), 228 S.E.2d 395 (1976); Stanley v. State, 136 Ga.App. 385, 386(2), 221 S.E.2d 242 (1975). See also Fountain v. State, 136 Ga.App. 229, 232(4), ......