Roman v. State
| Decision Date | 15 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59950,59950 |
| Citation | 155 Ga.App. 355,271 S.E.2d 21 |
| Parties | ROMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William L. Martin, III, Douglasville, for appellant.
William A. Foster, III, Dist. Atty., Barbara V. Tinsley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of violating Code Ann. § 26-2020, enticing a child for indecent purposes. We affirm.
1. Defendant asserts that the trial court committed error by instructing the jury to enter its verdict on a form which read "We, the jury, find the defendant ________ guilty," complaining that the form was impermissibly suggestive of guilt. This issue is controlled adversely to appellant's contentions by Chance v. State, 154 Ga.App. 543, 268 S.E.2d 737 (1980), citing Jackson v. State, 237 Ga. 663, 229 S.E.2d 345, and overruling Perkins v. State, 151 Ga.App. 199(3), 259 S.E.2d 193.
2. Nor do we find merit in appellant's contentions of error that the trial court's charge on circumstantial evidence was impermissibly burden shifting.
The court instructed the jury in pertinent part as follows: "Circumstantial evidence alone will not justify a finding of guilty unless the circumstances are entirely consistent with the defendant's guilt and wholly inconsistent with any reasonable theory of the defendant's innocence and are so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt."
The court's instruction consisted of a restatement of Code Ann. § 38-109 and, as such, did not constitute error. See Burnett v. State, 240 Ga. 681(7), 242 S.E.2d 79.
3. Defendant asserts error in the following court instructions to the jury: "If after giving consideration to all of the facts and circumstances of the case your minds are wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied, then that is the doubt of the law, and you should acquit." Defendant submits that the word "and" in the above charge required the jury to be wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied before acquitting, when any one of these three states of mind could constitute "reasonable doubt."
Since the words the court used to describe "reasonable doubt; " that is, wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied, were used as synonyms to describe the particular belief or feeling of doubt which is the "doubt of the law" and not three required separate states of mind, we cannot agree with appellant's contentions of error in this regard. See generally Code Ann. § 38-110.
4. Appellant asserts error on the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McChargue v. State
...State, 156 Ga.App. 40, 42(4), 274 S.E.2d 84 (1980), rev'd on other grounds 247 Ga. 74, 274 S.E.2d 334 (1981). In Roman v. State, 155 Ga.App. 355, 356(2), 271 S.E.2d 21 (1980), the court held that the trial court's charge on circumstantial evidence was not burden-shifting. The charge in pert......
-
Peavy v. State
...of enticing a child for indecent purposes. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Roman v. State, 155 Ga.App. 355(4), 271 S.E.2d 21 (1980). Accord, Dennis v. State, 158 Ga.App. 142(2), 279 S.E.2d 275 (b) The evidence also authorized the jury to find that th......
-
Coker v. State
...34, 59 S.E. 207, supra. The evidence in the instant case authorized the guilty verdict as to Code Ann. § 26-2020. Roman v. State, 155 Ga.App. 355, 356(4), 271 S.E.2d 21 (1980). Compare Sanders v. State, 145 Ga.App. 73, 243 S.E.2d 274 After a review of the entire record, we find that a ratio......
-
Third World, Ltd. No. II, Inc. v. Brewmasters of Augusta, Inc.
... ... It is well-settled in this state, at least, that no cause of action for fraud exists in one who buys or accepts security in land while failing to exercise any diligence for his ... ...