Walden v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44802,44802,2 |
| Citation | 121 Ga.App. 142,173 S.E.2d 110 |
| Parties | John R. WALDEN v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., J. Roger Thompson, Tony H. Hight, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syallabus Opinion by the Court.
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of unlawfully receiving, harboring and concealing an escaped convict. The appeal is from the judgment and sentence, including the overruling of a motion to quash the indictment and the motion for new trial, as amended. The substance of the alleged crime as disclosed by the evidence was that the accused assisted in the escape and then harbored the escaped State prisoner. This was shown by facts and circumstances amounting to an alleged conspiracy by the accused to assist the prisoner to escape, after which he was allegedly harbored by the accused. The testimony, in the main, discloses that the accused and his wife, both using an assumed name, together with another man and a little girl, visited the prisoner at the Reidsville Penitentiary shortly before he was transferred to the Talmadge Memorial Hospital in Augusta, from which he escaped. Another prisoner testified that the (escaped) prisoner on the night before he escaped gave him the Atlanta telephone number of the accused and wanted him to call the accused and tell him he would be in Augusta, that a guard was supposed to call but he wanted to be sure. This prisoner also testified that a custodial officer named O'Neil told the (escaped) prisoner in their presence shortly before leaving for Augusta that he had got a call through to Raymond and he is going to be at the hospital to pick you up. An Atlanta telephone official testified that there was a long distance call from Collins, Ga., to this number on the day before the escape. The Atlanta number was listed in the name of J. R. Walden. A white Ford car with an Atlanta license plate was seen following the car in which a guard and two prisoners being transferred to Reidsville were riding; a white car was also seen in the vicinity of the hospital thereafter, and also a light or off-white car was seen at or near the mother's home in Atlanta during the time the escapee was supposedly there, and the accused and another man and a little girl were seen riding in the car. Another witness testified that during the period the prisoner was allegedly harbored in the home of the mother of the accused she heard voices through the walls in the mother's apartment. The voices were male voices talking to a child, and one of the voices sounded like that of the accused, but she would not testify that it was his voice. A police officer testified that escapee was found in the apartment of the defendant's mother. He further testified that an informant told him the accused took the escaped convict from the Talmadge Memorial Hospital to his mother's home, and, based on the information of the informant, the police officers obtained a search warrant and recaptured the escaped convict.
The appeal is from the overruling of motions to quash, for new trial, as amended, and in arrest of judgment. Error is enumerated on the denial of the motion for new trial as amended, a charge on the law of conspiracy, and on the admission of a number of documents, being copies of indictments. Held:
1. A conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary that the conspirators ever had a meeting, or a formal or other agreement to accomplish the purpose of their joint efforts and it may be inferred from the acts, declarations and conduct of the co-conspirators, together with other circumstances in the case. Woodruff v. Hughes, 2 Ga.App. 361(3), 58 S.E. 551. See also Huckaby v. Griffin Hosiery Mills, 205 Ga. 88, 91, 52 S.E.2d 585, 587-588, wherein it is said: Again, in Nottingham v. Wrigley, 221 Ga. 386, 388, 144 S.E.2d 749, 751, the Supreme Court held: * * *' See also Holbert v. Allred, 24 Ga.App. 727(2), 102 S.E. 192, and citations; Archer v. Gwinnett County, 110 Ga.App. 442(2), 138 S.E.2d 895; Cook v. Robinson, 216 Ga. 328, 329-330, 116 S.E.2d 742. The evidence here of a conspiracy by and between Cozzalino and Walden was based on circumstances alone. But, under the above authorities, the evidence was sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. City of Columbus, No. 50504
... ... 5. (a) The plaintiff's suit was initially brought against 'City of Columbus, a consolidated government under the laws of the State of Georgia,' as a defendant. An [136 Ga.App. 691] answer was filed on behalf of such defendant, placing in issue the sufficiency of ante litem ... (See Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142, 143(1), 173 S.E.2d 110) ... In the second amendment to complaint, Count 3, Par. 18 (R. 52) plaintiff ... ...
-
Butler v. State
... ... See Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142, 173 S.E.2d 110 ... Though Butler took the stand under oath in his defense, the defense consisted entirely of his denials of criminal involvement and denials of the more incriminating elements of the state's case, which could no more than raise a conflict ... ...
-
Wisdom v. State
... ... There was no evidence tending to show appellant ever made any effort to withdraw from the conspiracy. See Battle v. State, 231 Ga. 501, 202 S.E.2d 449; McKenzie v. State, 231 Ga. 513, 514, 202 S.E.2d 417; Foster v. State, 230 Ga. 666(3), 198 S.E.2d 847; and, Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142(1), 173 S.E.2d 110 ... In support of enumeration of error No. 20, appellant argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the law of recent possession as 'there was simply no evidence that (appellant) possessed the drugs in question.' ... ...
-
Causey v. State
... ... Neither is it essential that the conspirators formulated their unlawful objective either by words or writings. It is sufficient that two or more persons in any manner either expressly or tacitly came to a mutual understanding that they would accomplish the unlawful design. Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142, 173 S.E.2d 110 (1970). The evidence here is clearly sufficient to support the verdict and our review of the record compels our conclusion that any rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence proof of the guilt of appellants beyond a reasonable ... ...