Price v. State, 60239
| Citation | 273 S.E.2d 225,155 Ga.App. 844 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60239,60239 |
| Parties | PRICE v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Larry A. Foster, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Harold G. Benefield, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
On November 14, 1978, at about 3:30 a. m., the Waffle House on Riverdale Road in Atlanta was robbed by two armed black males, who took the money from the cash register and wallets from all the customers and employees who were present. At approximately 1:30 p. m. the same day, the appellant Paul Reginald Price together with Rudolph Cooper was apprehended in a boutique in West End Mall using credit cards taken during the Waffle House robbery. Both Price and Cooper plead guilty to forgery, telling the police that Cooper had purchased the credit cards. At 9:00 p. m. on the same day, six of the eight victims of the Waffle House robbery viewed a lineup at Atlanta Police Headquarters that included Price and Cooper. Five of the six identified Cooper as one of the perpetrators, but none of them identified Price. Again, at a preliminary hearing on November 16, none of the witnesses identified Price. However, Cooper and Price were jointly indicted and charged with six counts of armed robbery of the Waffle House. Prior to trial Price's attorney filed several motions, including one for severance, all of which were denied. The case was tried for four days before a jury, ending in a verdict of guilty on all counts as to both defendants, and Price appeals. Held:
1. Although Price enumerates some 21 errors, we consider the controlling issue to be the overruling of his numerous motions to sever made prior to and during the course of the trial. While the grant or denial of a motion to sever is discretionary with the trial judge, Cain v. State, 235 Ga. 128, 129, 218 S.E.2d 856.
In his written motion to sever filed prior to trial, Price alleged that eight witnesses for the state had identified Cooper as one of the black males who robbed the Waffle House, but that only one of these witnesses had connected him with this crime; that he had reason to believe the state was planning to use against him witnesses from crimes committed by Cooper but not by him; that he had reason to believe Cooper planned to use and present a defense which he knew was contrary to the truth; that trying him and Cooper together would create confusion of the evidence and law applicable to each individual defendant; that trying them together would create a danger that evidence admissible against Cooper but not admissible against him would be considered against him despite the admonitory precaution of the court; that his and Cooper's defenses were antagonistic to each other; and that failure to sever the trials would prejudice him. The court denied the motion on the ground that there were no antagonistic defenses.
From our review of the trial transcript, however, we conclude that the evidence while overwhelming against Cooper, presented little or nothing to connect Price with the robbery. Indeed, the only witness identification of Price was admitted over objection and the witness' ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Virger v. State
...the crimes occurred, juxtaposed against overwhelming evidence that the co-defendants committed the offenses. See Price v. State, 155 Ga. App. 844, 845, 273 S.E.2d 225 (1980) (holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to sever because the evidence against his co-de......
-
Thomas v. State
...have been avoided by severance. Isaac v. State, 269 Ga. 875, 879(7), 505 S.E.2d 480 (1998). Thomas's reliance on Price v. State, 155 Ga.App. 844, 273 S.E.2d 225 (1980) is misplaced. In Price, "the evidence against one co-defendant was deemed to be so overwhelming and the evidence against th......
-
Elkins v. State
...supplied); accord Green , 274 Ga. at 688 (2), 558 S.E.2d 707.31 On appeal, Elkins relies almost exclusively on Price v. State , 155 Ga. App. 844, 273 S.E.2d 225 (1980) in arguing that a severance of her trial was warranted. But Price is distinguishable because, unlike here, the co-defendant......
-
Henderson v. State
...adduced against his co-defendant." Even though this request to charge was developed from this court's opinion in Price v. State, 155 Ga.App. 844(1), 273 S.E.2d 225 (1980), "... language of a reviewing court's opinion is not necessarily appropriate for use by a trial judge in charging the ju......