Rutland v. State, 48232
| Decision Date | 27 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 48232,48232,1 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 313,199 S.E.2d 595 |
| Parties | Charles RUTLAND v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
W. B. Mitchell, Forsyth, for appellant.
Edward E. McGarity, Dist. Atty., McDonough, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal on the general grounds from a burglary conviction. The state's evidence shows that the prosecutrix lived in a house about 150 feet from a general store, and that between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. someone three a dress over her head and stole her purse, which was later discovered in a nearby field. She saw a black left arm, and attempted to scratch it. The evidence linking the defendant with the crime was as follows: He was seen from the store at about 4:00 p.m. walking down the highway, and again at around 4:20 p.m. A third person saw him in the area of the store and house between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. All witnesses agreed that he was barefooted. One large barefoot track was found in the back yard of the prosecutrix' home, and another on a dirt road some distance away. The sheriff testified that the following day he examined the black defendant's left arm and noted scratches. There was no attempt to compare the footprints with the defendant's feet.
Mere presence near the scene of a crime is not sufficient to support a conviction. Jones v. State, 64 Ga.App. 308, 13 S.E.2d 91. Nor are the tracks found sufficient, unless they are shown to have been those of the defendant. Lindsey v. State, 9 Ga.App. 299(3), 70 S.E. 1114. Testimony that there were scratches on the defendant's arms was admissible, but nothing identified them as being consistent with having been made by fingernails, and the prosecutrix in fact was not certain that she had succeeded in scratching her assailant. As stated by the appellant's able counsel, the sight of a barefoot man on the country roads of Georgia is not so rare that it will serve to establish identity.
The evidence was entirely circumstantial, and was insufficient to support the conviction.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chews v. State
...836, 363 S.E.2d 52 (1987). In our view, the circumstantial evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Compare Rutland v. State, 129 Ga.App. 313, 199 S.E.2d 595 (1973). It was more than sufficient to enable the jury to find defendant guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doub......
-
Graham v. State
...identification of defendant was suspect given that victim saw only perpetrator's eyes during robbery). Graham cites Rutland v. State , 129 Ga.App. 313, 199 S.E.2d 595 (1973), for the proposition that an identification largely based on race and clothing is insufficient to sustain a convictio......
-
Huncke v. State, 51541
...defendants in the illegal act, is insufficient to authorize conviction. Jones v. State, 64 Ga.App. 308, 13 S.E.2d 91; Rutland v. State, 129 Ga.App. 313, 314, 199 S.E.2d 595. 3. Tracks found at the scene are insufficient to connect a defendant to the crime unless they are shown to have been ......
-
Carter v. State
...on the rule that proof of mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to support a conviction. E.g., Rutland v. State, 129 Ga.App. 313, 199 S.E.2d 595 (1973). In addition, the appellant argues that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, which does not exclude every oth......