Sutton v. State, 24037
| Decision Date | 20 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24037,24037 |
| Citation | 154 S.E.2d 578,223 Ga. 313 |
| Parties | James Edward SUTTON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Cook & Palmour, Summerville, for appellant.
Robert L. Vining, Jr., Sol. Gen., Dalton, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery by force and sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment in the State penitentiary. Upon completion of the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The appeal is from the judgment and sentence based upion the denial of the motion for directed verdict. The victim, Mitchell, was unable to positively identify the robbers who overpowered him in his cow barn because they were disguised and masked; but, in substance, he testified that one was short, the other tall; that the taller one's face was taped up and he called the shorter one 'James,' and that 'James' wore a 'boggin' for a mask. An accomplice testified that he wore masking tape on his face and the appellant wore a 'boggin' for a mask; that they committed the robbery, and in the process he called the appellant by his first name, James, twice in the presence of the victim. In addition there was other testimony showing (1) the accomplice and the appellant were together before and after the crime; (2) criminal admissions by them to others in conversations (a) concerning a robbery; (b) about robbing somebody named Mitchell; (c) leaving a man in a barn; and (d) having a large sum of money. Held:
1. Prior to the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, as amended (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 20; Ga.L.1966, pp. 493, 494; Code Ann. § 6-702), it was never error for the trial judge to deny a motion for directed verdict. Baugh v. State, 211 Ga. 863, 89 S.E.2d 504, and cases cited therein among many, many others. However, the above law supersedes all such decisions since the appellant may now 'enumerate as error the overruling of * * * (a) motion for directed verdict.' A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict need not be filed as a condition precedent to a review upon an order overruling a motion for directed verdict although it may still be filed in cases in which it is an available remedy.
2. To authorize a felony conviction on the testimony of an accomplice it is necessary that his evidence be corroborated (Code §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burston v. Caldwell
...acquittal. Until 1965, there was no Georgia statutory authority for the granting of such motions in criminal cases. See Sutton v. State, 1967, 223 Ga. 313, 154 S.E.2d 578; but see Pritchard v. State, 1968, 224 Ga. 776, 164 S.E.2d 808 pointing out that Sutton was no longer controlling becaus......
-
Payne v. State
...must be independent of the testimony of the accomplice. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776(1), 164 S.E.2d 808; Sutton v. State, 223 Ga. 313(2), 154 S.E.2d 578; Waldrop v. State, 221 Ga. 319(1), 144 S.E.2d The question then becomes: Was Taylor on accomplice of appellant? The cross examination b......
-
Pritchard v. State
...assigned on the refusal of the trial judge to grant the motions of the defendant to direct a verdict of not guilty. In Sutton v. State, 223 Ga. 313(1), 154 S.E.2d 578, this court held that under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 20, as amended by G.L.1966, pp. 493, 494)......
-
Grimsley v. State, 25290
...224 Ga. 776, 164 S.E.2d 808; Hargrove v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 54 S.E. 164; Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S.E. 1; Sutton v. State, 223 Ga. 313(2), 154 S.E.2d 578; Park v. State, 224 Ga. 467, 162 S.E.2d 359. There is no merit in the general grounds of the motion for new trial or in the enum......