Pritchard v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24823,24823 |
| Citation | 164 S.E.2d 808,224 Ga. 776 |
| Parties | J. B. PRITCHARD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The corroboration of an accomplice necessary to sustain a conviction in a felony case must be facts or circumstances which, in themselves, and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty, and must be more than sufficient to merely cast on the defendant a grave suspicion of guilt.
2. It was not error to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty.
3. Since the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, the case is remanded for a new trial.
John L. Respess, Jr., James R. Venable, H. G. McBrayer, Jr., Respess, Venable & McBrayer, Atlanta, for appellant.
Andrew J. Whalen, Sol. Gen., Griffin, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Childers, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
1. J. B. Pritchard was charged with the offense of robbery by the use of an offensive weapon, was convicted, and given a sentence of twenty years. The robbery occurred on August 13, 1967, at the home of Bill Morris, and the witnesses to the robbery testified that three armed men accomplished the robbery by using an acetylene torch to cut open a safe in the home, and that one of the robbers talked on a walkietalkie during the progress of the crime. The three men were later identified as Herman Saxton, Richard Jenkins, and Denvil Ronald Daniel. The question made as to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of Daniel that the defendant was also a participant in the robbery.
Daniel testified on the trial that: The defendant assisted in planning the robbery, was the one who told them about the safe, made a call to see if Morris would be away from home at the time they planned to commit the crime, preceded the others in his truck, operated a walkie-talkie in nearby woods for the purpose of giving them help if they needed it, and received a share of the proceeds of the robbery. When the witness came to Griffin (the home of the defendant), the defendant gave him a Veteran's Georgia driver's license, a draft registration card, and a social security card, which the witness gave back to the defendant after the money was divided.
Daniel and Saxton both testified that the automobile used in the robbery was a blue and white Pontiac belonging to Saxton, in which he had an acetylene torch, walkie-talkies, binoculars, and a gun, all of these items being used in the robbery.
Saxton testified further that: He communicated with some person by means of a walkie-talkie during the robbery, but he did not know who it was. He was arrested in Knoxville, Tennessee on the violation of a mandatory release from the Federal Prison. He left his automobile parked in a parking lot behind some apartments in the 900 block of Walnut Street, and when he left the automobile it had in it some money, some clothes, a torch, and other equipment.
Sheriff Dwayne Gilbert testified that when the defendant was arrested on October 12, 1967, he was searched and there were found on his person eight blank Veteran's Georgia driver's licenses.
Sergeant Bill Major, a member of the Police Force of Knoxville, Tennessee, testified: He saw the defendant in Knoxville, on some date between the 20th and 25th of August. They received a call in the 900 block of Walnut Street, and went there to answer it. When they got there they found a wrecker driver with a wrecker, and the defendant was standing at the back of the car. The defendant The car was on private property back of an apartment building. It was a 1961 or 1962 Pontiac, white over blue. The witness left the defendant standing there with the wrecker driver.
Sheriff Gilbert testified that he had known the defendant for more than fifteen years, and he had never known him to be in the business of repossessing automobiles for finance companies.
The defendant in his statement denied that he had any connection with the robbery, and denied being in Knoxville, Tennessee.
'The rule is well established that, to sustain a conviction in a felony case upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating facts or circumstances, which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty, and more than sufficient to merely cast on the defendant a grave suspicion of guilty.' Price v. State, 208 Ga. 695(3a), 69 S.E.2d 253; Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455(2), 111 S.E.2d 70. 'Corroboration of the accomplice as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. State
...1, 1971. Code Ann. § 102-111. Therefore it was not error to deny the motions for directed verdicts made by appellant. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776(2), 164 S.E.2d 808; Ford v. State, 227 Ga. 279(2), 180 S.E.2d 545. See also Morris v. State, 228 Ga. 39, 51, 184 S.E.2d 8. Adequate and effec......
-
Turner v. State
...broadcast his testimony to the world before trial and then call anyone who heard it to corroborate it in court."); Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 164 S.E.2d 808 (1968) (corroboration must be independent of the testimony of the accomplice, thus, physical evidence that corroborated testimon......
-
Norman v. State
...v. State, 92 Ga. 459, 17 S.E. 667. 4. It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776(2), 164 S.E.2d 808; Casey v. State, 119 Ga.App. 114(1), 166 S.E.2d 5. While it is asserted in the amended motion for new trial that a reque......
-
Birt v. State
...but must be shown by independent proof. Wall v. State, supra; Lanier v. State, 187 Ga. 534, 1 S.E.2d 405 (1939); Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 164 S.E.2d 808 (1968); and Caldwell v. State, 227 Ga. 703, 182 S.E.2d 789 (1971). He relies particularly on Wall v. State, supra, where the court......