Stinson v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 75285,75285 |
| Citation | 185 Ga.App. 543,364 S.E.2d 910 |
| Parties | STINSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Robert Joiner, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Convicted of burglary (OCGA § 16-7-1(a)) and aggravated sodomy (OCGA § 16-6-2(a)), defendant appeals, claiming error in the denial of his motion for new trial.
The motion for new trial claimed three errors: (1) failure of the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) if guilt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence was sufficiently close to warrant the exercise of discretion by the trial court in granting a new trial; (3) the court committed an error of law warranting a new trial.
On appeal, however, the error of law ground is not pursued as a separate ground apart from the evidence question, and there is thus nothing for us to consider in this regard. We note that although appellant embraces in his enumeration that the verdict is "contrary to law" the further assertion that it is contrary "to the principles of justice and equity," the latter concept, as well as the former when it relates to the evidence question, has been subsumed in, or equated with, the evidence question. Ridley v. State, 236 Ga. 147, 149(1), 223 S.E.2d 131 (1976). There the Court considered these two challenges on appeal as being nothing more nor less than the separately stated sufficiency attack on the evidence. Interestingly, only the "justice and equity" concept, and not the "law" concept, is contained in the words of OCGA § 5-5-20.
As to the remaining two grounds, they are presented on appeal in some of the language of OCGA § 5-5-20 and § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is contrary to the evidence ("and without evidence to support it," which is not in the Code but we take to mean substantially the same thing), and that the verdict is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. As to the second of these, which is found in OCGA § 5-5-21, this ground is addressed to the trial judge's discretion alone. Daniel v. State, 180 Ga.App. 687, 688(1), 350 S.E.2d 49 (1986). The only matter left is the "general ground" relating to the sufficiency of the evidence. Ridley v. State, supra, overruled to the extent that it used the "any evidence" standard for making this determination on appeal by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), as noted in Adams v. State, 255 Ga. 356, 357 (fn. 2), 338 S.E.2d 860 (1986).
At any rate the evidence, in the light favorable to the verdict, shows that defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. State
...U.S. 307, 310, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Wilburn v. State, 199 Ga.App. 667(1), 405 S.E.2d 889 (1991); Stinson v. State, 185 Ga.App. 543, 554, 364 S.E.2d 910 (1988). "In Georgia, a defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. OCGA § 24-4-8.... ......
-
Alonso v. State
...primary issue to be determined and was properly left to the jury. OCGA § 24-9-80. The evidence was sufficient. Stinson v. State, 185 Ga.App. 543, 544, 364 S.E.2d 910 (1988); Towns v. State, 185 Ga.App. 545, 365 S.E.2d 137 7. Finally, defendant contends that sentencing him consecutively was ......
-
Ellis v. State
...688, 350 S.E.2d 49 (1986). The remaining claims will be considered as relating to the sufficiency of the evidence. Stinson v. State, 185 Ga.App. 543, 364 S.E.2d 910 (1988). ...
-
Williams v. State
...verdict was contrary to the evidence and strongly against the weight of the evidence, two of the "general grounds," Stinson v. State, 185 Ga.App. 543, 364 S.E.2d 910 (1988); Towns v. State, 185 Ga.App. 545, 365 S.E.2d 137 (1988), and that the court erred in denying his motion for directed...