Smith v. State, 55079
| Decision Date | 09 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 55079,55079,1 |
| Citation | 144 Ga.App. 785,242 S.E.2d 376 |
| Parties | Esquire SMITH v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jack H. Affleck, Jr., C. P. Brackett, Jr., Athens, for appellant.
Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Athens, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for the crimes of aggravated assault and obstructing an officer; he was acquitted of the aggravated assault charge. From a jury verdict of guilty as to the crime of obstructing an officer, this appeal was brought. Held :
1. Appellant contends that the verdicts were inconsistent. This contention is without merit for two reasons. First, by appellant's own admission, the offenses for which he was indicted are comprised of factually distinct elements; an acquittal as to aggravated assault (deadly weapon required, Code Ann. § 26-1302) does not preclude a conviction for obstructing an officer (no deadly weapon required, Code Ann. § 26-2505). Quite clearly, the evidence authorized the jury to find that no deadly force was used, even though some obstruction of the officer, in the legal performance of his duties, did occur. Fullwood v. State, 128 Ga.App. 772, 773, 197 S.E.2d 858, 859. Furthermore, "(i)t is obvious that the offenses involved here, although taking place at the same general time and location, are separate offenses in that each is established by proof of different facts, and each offense is distinct as a matter of law . . . ." Kramer v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 395, 397, 216 S.E.2d 119, 122. See Bruce v. State, 142 Ga.App. 211, 235 S.E.2d 606.
Second, the offenses with which appellant was indicted, although chronologically proximate, nevertheless involve two separate incidents, and therefore are distinct as a matter of fact. Clearly, an acquittal as to one incident does not preclude a conviction for a second, separate and distinct incident. Kramer v. Hopper, supra.
2. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. "As to the general grounds, this court is bound by the 'any evidence' rule and must accept the state's version of the evidence, as was done by the jury and the trial judge." Franklin v. State, 136 Ga.App. 47, 48(1), 220 S.E.2d 60, 61. Accordingly, ". . . the verdict of guilty should be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it." Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 376, 219 S.E.2d 743, 747. The evidence adduced at trial satisfied the "any evidence" rule; this enumeration is without merit.
3. Appellant cites Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 577, 27 S.E.2d 91, 98 for the proposition that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State, 71796
...it inconsistent, this court will infer that the jury adopted that explanation consistent with its findings.' [Cits.]" Smith v. State, 144 Ga.App. 785, 786, 242 S.E.2d 376. "The determinative factor in such cases is whether the acquittal of one charge necessarily includes a finding against a......
-
Hamilton v. State
...facts and each is distinct as a matter of law. Kramer v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 395, 397, 216 S.E.2d 119 (1975); Smith v. State, 144 Ga.App. 785, 786, 242 S.E.2d 376 (1978). 2. The next contention by Hamilton is that the conviction was erroneous because evidence of force and corroboration was lack......
-
Smith v. Holeman
...he had the right to use that force reasonably necessary. See Morton v. State, 190 Ga. 792, 799, 10 S.E.2d 836; Smith v. State, 144 Ga.App. 785, 786-787, 242 S.E.2d 376. If the arrest was unlawful, Smith had the right to resist the unlawful arrest with all force necessary. See Wagner v. Stat......
-
Scott v. State, 57146
...explanation consistent with its findings. (Cits.)' Fullwood v. State, 128 Ga.App. 772, 773, 197 S.E.2d 858." Smith v. State, 144 Ga.App. 785, 786(1), 242 S.E.2d 376, 377 (1978). See Bruce v. State, 142 Ga.App. 211(1), 235 S.E.2d 606 Judgment affirmed. BELL, C. J., and BANKE, J., concur. ...