Schwerdtfeger v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 66331,66331 |
| Parties | SCHWERDTFEGER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
C. Andrew Fuller, Lilburn, for appellant.
Bruce L. Udolf, Dist. Atty., Donald T. Hunt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gainesville, for appellee.
The defendant appeals his conviction for criminal attempt to commit theft by taking. Although seven enumerations of error are listed, in fact they present but two issues: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict; 2) whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury involving the issues of theft by taking and attempted theft by taking were prejudicial in that such instructions amounted to expressions or intimations of opinion by the judge as to matters proved. See OCGA § 17-8-55 (Code Ann. § 81-1104). Held:
1. The defendant's argument as to the insufficiency of the evidence basically is predicated on what he alleges is a failure by the State to establish the essential element of intent.
As held in Howard v. State, 222 Ga. 525, 526, 150 S.E.2d 834, "The word 'intention' as used in Code § 26-201 [now OCGA § 16-2-1] does not mean an intention to violate a penal statute but an intention to commit the act prohibited thereby." Accord, Williams v. State, 158 Ga.App. 384, 386, 280 S.E.2d 365. Expressed another way, intent refers to the proposition that one intends the consequences of his voluntary actions. Holloway v. McElroy, 632 F.2d 605, 618 (5th Cir.).
Intention may be manifest by the circumstances connected with the perpetration of the offense. Patterson v. State, 1 Ga.App. 782, 784, 58 S.E. 284. OCGA § 16-2-6 (Code Ann. § 26-605) provides: "A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention but the trier of facts may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted."
We held in Mallette v. State, 119 Ga.App. 24, 27, 165 S.E.2d 870: "... the intent with which an act is done is peculiarly a question of fact for determination by the jury and although a finding that the accused had the intent to commit the crime charged may be supported by evidence which is exceedingly weak and unsatisfactory the verdict will not be set aside on that ground."
In the case sub judice two witnesses saw the mower/tractor which was the subject of the theft being driven, with no lights showing, away from the lot of the dealership which owned it. These same two witnesses testified they later located the purloined vehicle on a secluded street and that the defendant who was driving a four wheel drive vehicle with a trailer attached was parked adjacent thereto; that after the defendant inquired of them whether they had a jack he drove off leaving the mower/tractor behind.
The defendant in his testimony before the jury admitted driving the mower/tractor out of the dealer's lot but explained he took the vehicle since his own four wheel drive vehicle's gears were malfunctioning and he required the mower/tractor in order to start his vehicle.
From the trial record, the jury was authorized to disregard the defendant's detailed but somewhat convoluted explanation of why he took the tractor and to find the requisite intent to deprive the owner of the property in question.
A rational jury could have found from the evidence adduced proof of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashley v. State
...another way, intent refers to the proposition that one intends the consequences of his voluntary actions.” Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga.App. 19, 20(1), 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983) (citations and punctuation omitted). “The presence or lack of criminal intent is for the jury to decide based on th......
-
Thomas v. State
..."does not mean an intention to violate a penal statute but an intention to commit the act prohibited thereby." Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga.App. 19, 20(1), 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983). Here the jury was authorized to find criminal intent from all of the circumstances provided defendant did inte......
-
Colsson v. State
...v. State, 165 Ga.App. 625, 626(3), 302 S.E.2d 361 (1983). Intent is a question for the jury, OCGA § 16-2-6, Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga.App. 19, 20(1), 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983). In addition to finding several bags of methamphetamine, appellant had a loaded pistol, a body bug detector and a ......
-
Abreu v. State
...failure to include recharge on "reasonable doubt." But, even if he had, there would be no reversible error. Schwerdtfeger v. State, 167 Ga.App. 19, 21(2), 305 S.E.2d 834 (1983). See also Haggins v. State, 181 Ga.App. 530(2), 353 S.E.2d 12 (1987); Chancellor v. State, 165 Ga.App. 365, 374(29......