Stanford v. State
| Decision Date | 22 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A2325.,A98A2325. |
| Citation | 236 Ga. App. 597,512 S.E.2d 708 |
| Parties | STANFORD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William J. Mason, Atlanta, for appellant.
J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Neal J. Callahan, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Jerome Stanford was convicted of arson in the first degree. His motion for new trial as amended was denied. Stanford appeals, enumerating as error the sufficiency of the evidence and a portion of the trial court's charge to the jury. We find no error and affirm.
1. Construed to uphold the jury's verdict, evidence was presented that LaKesha Weaver's apartment burned on May 13, 1996. Shortly after the fire was extinguished, Lieutenant Robert Walker, an arson investigator, determined that the fire was intentionally caused. He testified that all four burners on the kitchen stove had been turned on and a combustible material placed on top. It did not appear to Walker that anyone had attempted to cook on the stove, and no pots or pans had been placed on it. Before Walker entered the apartment to investigate the fire, he saw Stanford standing outside the building. Stanford explained to Walker that he had been staying nearby with another female, Washington. Although disputed by Weaver at trial, Walker testified that Weaver stated to him that Stanford had told her "he started the fire by turning the stove on." Weaver also provided a written statement that Stanford had told her he started the fire.
We also note the testimony of Washington, the female friend with whom Stanford was visiting on the night of the fire, that he left her apartment but returned shortly after the fire began. She testified that she saw Stanford outside her window running toward her apartment, and when he entered her apartment, he appeared excited. She stated that Stanford "was acting a little strange then, maybe because he was nervous." Stanford told Washington that Weaver's house was on fire and used her telephone to call Weaver's mother to report the fire to her.
Under OCGA § 16-7-60(a)(1), an individual commits the offense of arson in the first degree, when he or she knowingly damages by fire "[a]ny dwelling house of another without his consent ... whether it is occupied, unoccupied, or vacant." Stanford contends that because the indictment charged that he damaged "the property of the Columbus housing authority occupied by LaKesha Weaver," the State was required to introduce evidence that the building was indeed owned by the housing authority. But evidence showing that the damaged property was owned by the housing authority was not necessarily required. "[L]awful occupancy by one in charge constitutes ownership as contemplated by the [arson] statute ..., and the question of legal title is not involved." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hufstetler v. State, 171 Ga.App. 106, 109(6), 319 S.E.2d 869 (1984). Thus, the "ownership" of the dwelling by the housing authority "was an unnecessarily minute description of an unnecessary fact alleged in the indictment and need not have been proved." Id.
Some evidence of Weaver's occupancy was shown. It is true that Weaver acknowledged on cross-examination that at the time of the fire, she had basically moved out of the apartment and had removed many of her belongings, and that Stanford was planning to live in the apartment while she and he "worked on getting back together." But she also testified that some of her possessions remained inside the apartment, including her child's winter coat and some toys, and that after the fire, she returned to the apartment to find Stanford "walking through my back door." (Emphasis supplied.) In addition, Stanford testified that Weaver and her children1 were "going to be coming over [to the apartment] and staying." Some evidence of Weaver's occupancy was thus presented authorizing a rational trier of fact to find Stanford guilty of arson under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Stanford also contends the trial court erroneously charged the law applicable to first degree arson. The indictment charged him with unlawfully and knowingly damaging by fire a dwelling house without consent of the owner. See OCGA § 16-7-60(a)(1). In its initial charge to the jury, however, the court charged OCGA § 16-7-60(a)(5), which defines first degree arson as knowingly damaging by fire a dwelling "or other structure under such circumstances that it is reasonably foreseeable that human life might be endangered." At the conclusion of the charge, the State pointed out that the court should have charged on subsection (a)(1) as well and noted that they had "talked about that ahead of time." Defense counsel responded that although he "would have preferred one over the other," the subsection the court read to the jury was sufficient. He also stated that he "wouldn't want to bring [the jury] back and confuse them." Additionally, defense counsel stated that he The court then recharged the jury, reading both subsections (a)(1) and (5).
Stanford argues that it is reversible error to charge an entire Code section "if a reasonable possibility exists that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...in the framing of the trial court's response, approved it and, therefore, acquiesced in that response. Stanford v. State, 236 Ga.App. 597, 599(2), 512 S.E.2d 708 (1999); Grier v. State, 218 Ga.App. 637, 640(3), 463 S.E.2d 130 (1995). See also Berry v. State, 267 Ga. 605, 612(11), 481 S.E.2d......
-
Miners v. State
...2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 3. Lathan v. State, 241 Ga.App. 750, 751(1), 526 S.E.2d 350 (2000). 4. Id. 5. See Stanford v. State, 236 Ga.App. 597, 598(1), 512 S.E.2d 708 (1999); Steidl v. State, 215 Ga. App. 17, 18-19, 449 S.E.2d 644 (1994); Hart v. State, 184 Ga.App. 300, 301, 361 S.E.2d 2......
-
Sharpe v. State
...him of a crime not in the indictment. See Hunley v. State, 227 Ga.App. 234, 235, 488 S.E.2d 716 (1997); but see Stanford v. State, 236 Ga.App. 597, 512 S.E.2d 708 (1999). We disagree. “Where the indictment charges a defendant committed an offense by one method, it is reversible error for th......
-
Stanford v. Stewart
...set fire to the apartment residence of his girlfriend. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Stanford v. State, 236 Ga.App. 597, 512 S.E.2d 708 (1999). Stanford sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Wheeler County, claiming that trial counsel was ineffective......