Whitfield v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62240,62240 |
| Citation | 159 Ga.App. 398,283 S.E.2d 627 |
| Parties | WHITFIELD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
David R. Autry, Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Michael D. Anderson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Michael Van Whitfield was indicted for twenty-nine counts of bribery. The trial court, 247 Ga. 361, 276 S.E.2d 841, directed a verdict of acquittal on five counts, he was found not guilty on five counts and was convicted of the remaining nineteen. He was sentenced to twenty years on each count to be served concurrently with five years to be served in prison, fifteen years on probation and during the probationary period was ordered to make restitution of $26,876.37. Whitfield had been employed by the Clayton County Board of Education as assistant director of maintenance at the time the offenses occurred.
1. Appellant's contention that Code Ann. § 26-2301 (Bribery) is vague, ambiguous and violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution is without merit. The constitutionality of this code section has been decided adversely to this contention. King v. State, 246 Ga. 386, 271 S.E.2d 630 (1980).
2. Appellant's claim that venue was not proved is also without merit. Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92, 93, 195 S.E.2d 402 (1973). The evidence in the present case, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to prove venue in Clayton County.
3. There was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the convictions on all counts upon which appellant was found guilty. Harrison, the owner of a heating and air conditioning business which provided services to the school board, testified that certain appliances, cash, and materials he provided the defendant were "... provided to kind of insure any work with the system." Harrison also testified that Whitfield informed him that other companies were available to replace him and that one firm had quoted a lower price for providing certain services and had offered him a ten percent kickback. Harrison stated that his dealings with the school board constituted sixty percent of his business and that he recovered the money and other benefits by billing the board under the "additional services rendered "portion" of the invoices he submitted. Testimony showed that Whitfield and his immediate supervisor, Patterson, approved the invoices. There was independent evidence to show that Whitfield received all of the cash and merchandise or directed that they be delivered to a third party.
Another witness, Summer, testified, that he placed a roof on Whitfield's new house in order not to lose the school board's roofing business. The school board was billed for the cost of the roof and it was charged off as repairs to a school. Again, the invoice was approved by Whitfield and Patterson.
4. A review of the complete testimony of Adams, who admitted billing the school board for items it did not receive, implicated both Whitfield and Patterson in the conspiracy. Whitfield had an air conditioning unit, which was received from Harrison, installed in Adams' building. Both men had to approve the invoice and after the investigation began, Whitfield and Patterson met with Adams and advised him that there could be a problem with the unit and suggested that he remove the serial numbers from the unit. He then removed the serial number plate.
The jury was correctly charged on conspiracy and that the act of one conspirator is considered to be the act of all the conspirators. Crosby v. State, 232 Ga. 599, 207 S.E.2d 515 (1974).
5. As to the loans made by Harrison to appellant (three checks totaling $2,650 and a check for $8,800), Whitfield contends that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the money was given as a bribe and that the state attempted to impeach its own witness.
Throughout his very contradictory testimony, Harrison always maintained that the checks were given as "loans" although he admitted that the promissory note supporting the $8,800 check was destroyed at Whitfield's request, that none of the money was ever repaid, that he recovered all of the money by billing the school board for "additional services rendered," that Whitfield approved the invoices for payment and informed an investigator from the district attorney's office that the checks went to Whitfield for services rendered as a subcontractor. Whitfield later got together with Harrison and prepared false documentation which would justify the checks as legitimate payments by Harrison to Whitfield. The state introduced the checks and the receipts made out by Whitfield into evidence. In spite of all this testimony, Harrison steadfastly maintained that the checks were loans and that he still looked to appellant for repayment.
Harrison's contradictory testimony goes to his credibility as a witness and is solely a matter for jury determination. Redd v. State, 154 Ga.App. 373, 268 S.E.2d 423 (1980). While the state is not permitted to impeach one of its witnesses, it may disprove facts testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNeese v. State
... ... As there was no evidence to the contrary, slight evidence as to venue is sufficient. See Dixon v. State, 150 Ga.App. 305(2), 257 S.E.2d 387; Whitfield ... v. State, 159 Ga.App. 398, 399(2), 283 S.E.2d 627. The question of venue is for the jury to decide, and the jury's decision will not be set aside where there is any evidence to support it. See Johns v. State, 239 Ga. 681, 682(1), 238 S.E.2d 372; Etchison v. State, 149 Ga.App. 866(1), 256 ... ...
-
Agan v. State
...256(1), 262 S.E.2d 551 (1979), and thus constitutes "consideration" within the meaning of OCGA § 16-10-2. See Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga.App. 398, 400(5), 283 S.E.2d 627 (1981). To the extent that there was any question as to whether the checks would be honored upon presentation, that fact ......
-
Osborn v. State, 62988
...Smith v. State, 245 Ga. 205(2), 264 S.E.2d 15 (1980); Birt v. State, 236 Ga. 815, 826, 225 S.E.2d 248 (1976); Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga.App. 398(6), 283 S.E.2d 627 (1981). Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty beyond a rea......
-
Gaskin v. State
...as to the burglary counts. A defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga.App. 398, 400(6), 283 S.E.2d 627 (1981); OCGA § 24-4-8. The testimony of a second accomplice, however, satisfies the corroboration requirement. Ledesma v.......