R. W. v. State, 50859
| Decision Date | 03 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 50859,50859,1 |
| Citation | 135 Ga.App. 668,218 S.E.2d 674 |
| Parties | R. W. v. STATE of Georgia |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph M. Winter, Decatur, for appellant.
Kathryn Ann Workman, Sol., Decatur, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an adjudication as a delinquent and the disposition flowing therefrom. Appellant, then a 14 year old youth, brings four enumerations of error to this court alleging (1) that the Juvenile Court of DeKalb County erred in failing to grant a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty where the petition alleged a theft by taking from an individual, whereas the proof showed the taking to be from a corporation; (2) the alleged erroneous admission of a non-voluntary admission, and the court's errors in failing to grant a motion for a directed verdict (3) where the only evidence was the uncorroborated confession of the juvenile and (4) the evidence was insufficient to show a crime was committed or that the juvenile committed it.
The transcript reflects that appellant was a part-time employee of Toney's, Incorporated, which was what amounted to a variety store wholly owned (except for one share in a sister) and managed by Mrs. Willa K. Toney. The store employed approximately 15 or 16 employees. These employees utilized a time clock to record their hours of work. On each Friday, the bookkeeper prepared a payroll from these time cards. Her usual procedure was to compute each employee's earnings, draw a check for that amount to be used for accounting purposes, and then go to the bank and cash each check. The cash obtained was routinely placed in a metal cash box secured by a three position combination device built into the box. The employees normally came to the bookkeeper for payment around 4:45 P.M. each Friday.
On Friday, October 11, 1974, the bookkeeper followed her usual routine. She returned from the bank with approximately $1,060.00 in payroll money. She paid about four employees and then left early on that day. At the time she left, she estimated there was approximately $600.00 in the payroll cash box. The bookkeeper secured the box and turned her payroll responsibilities over to the assistant bookkeeper, Mrs. Arnold.
Mrs. Arnold made a payroll payment to one more employee at about 4:00 P.M. Then she was called to the front of the store to wait on a customer seeking to purchase an item in Mrs. Arnold's particular area of expertise. Mrs. Arnold left the cash box open and unsecured on a desk in the office area. When she returned about 4:45 P.M., she detected a shortage in the money. Determining that a sufficient amount earlier had been drawn from the bank by the bookkeeper and that additional money was needed, an additional $500.00 was withdrawn and the payroll payments completed. The following day, a formal accounting reflected that $480.00 was missing.
Appellant R. W. arrived at the store just prior to 4:00 P.M. and his time card reflected he 'punched in' at the work area at 4:01 P.M. He subsequently was directed to empty trash baskets from the office area, including the office in which the payroll cash box was resting. After emptying the waste baskets appellant indicated he wanted to leave early and the time card reflected he 'punched out' at 4:31 P.M. He normally worked from 4:00 to 6:00 P.M.
On the following Tuesday evening at about 6:00 P.M., appellant and his father were asked by Mrs. Toney to come to the store. After their arrival Mrs. Toney asked R. W. about the missing money. He denied any knowledge of the loss. Mrs. Toney, obviously suspecting appellant, continued to press him. She stated in effect that if he didn't take the money, obviously he didn't take it. She informed R. W. she had spoken with a detective and if she couldn't clear the matter up she would have to turn the matter over to the police of investigation. She further asked R. W. if he would agree to take a polygraph examination and if he 'came clean' she would ask all her other employees to take such a test. Mrs. Toney also importuned R. W. to return less than the whole amount if he had taken the money and had spent some of it. She stated she would take back what he had left and there would be no charges brought.
At this point R. W. apparently admitted he had taken the money. He asked if he could return less than the whole amount was the offer not to prosecute still valid? Upon her assurance that her statement was true R. W. stated he had taken $480.00 but only had $80.00 left, having loaned the other $400.00 to an older brother. Though R. W. allegedly promised to return the $80.00, no money was ever recovered.
At the adjudicatory hearing, appellant denied taking any money and maintained that his admission he had taken $480.00 was just a statement to 'get Mrs. Toney off his back.' Held:
1. Appellant's first enumeration alleges a fatal variance between the allegation of ownership in Mrs. Willa K. Toney and the proof of ownership in Toney's, Incorporated. Mrs. Toney stated she was the sole owner and manager of Toney's, Incorporated. She did not handle the corporation's money and derived her support from other sources. The corporation existed primarily for its employees and Mrs. Toney was not on the payroll.
Notwithstanding the lack of financial support therefrom, Mrs. Toney was the sole owner and manager of the corporation. The evidence fully supports and authorizes a finding that Mrs. Willa K. Toney was the president, sole owner, and was actually in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...one who is in fact innocent. The issue is, "Whether the methods used produced an untrue acknowledgment of guilt," [R.W. v. State, 135 Ga.App. 668, 218 S.E.2d 674 (1975) ] and, "Were the circumstances such as to result in an untrustworthy confession." [ In Interest of G.G.P., 382 So.2d 128 (......
-
Glean v. State
...Miranda rights before questioning her. See Grogins v. State, 154 Ga.App. 606, 607(2), 269 S.E.2d 98 (1980); R. W. v. State of Ga., 135 Ga.App. 668, 670-671(2), 218 S.E.2d 674 (1975). Furthermore, in the absence of a transcript of the hearing we must presume that the rulings of the trial cou......
-
Grogins v. State, 59634
...Moreover, a Miranda warning had not been required because the case worker was not "a law enforcement officer." R. W. v. State of Ga., 135 Ga.App. 668, 671(2), 218 S.E.2d 674. This enumeration is without 3. However, we find merit in Grogins' second enumeration of error. In a factually simila......
-
Rucker v. State
...upon the caseworker to advise defendant of his Miranda rights because she was not a law enforcement officer. R.W. v. State of Ga., 135 Ga.App. 668, 671(2), 218 S.E.2d 674. See also Grogins v. State, 154 Ga.App. 606(2), 607, 269 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. SOGNIER, C.J., and COOPER, J., concur. ...