Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A2449,A93A2449 |
| Citation | 440 S.E.2d 534,211 Ga.App. 791 |
| Parties | WILSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kevin J. Street, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ronald M. Adams, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Jason Eric Wilson appeals his conviction of theft by receiving a stolen automobile, in violation of OCGA § 16-8-7. He contends the trial court erred by denying his motions for a directed verdict of acquittal and his motion for a new trial; that the trial court erred by granting the State's motion for immunity for a witness, and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to attack Wilson's character. Held:
1. Appellant's first three enumerations of error maintain that because the State failed to prove that he knew or should have known the automobile was stolen, the evidence was insufficient to allow the case to go to the jury or to sustain his conviction. Construing the evidence in favor of the verdict as we must (Grant v. State, 195 Ga.App. 463, 393 S.E.2d 737), we find the evidence establishes that two men stole a 1967 Volkswagen that was in very good, almost factory condition, and that after one of them kept the car for seven months, he transferred the automobile to Wilson with a bill of sale stating Wilson paid $100 for the car. Wilson in fact paid nothing. Later after attempting to sell the car for $500, Wilson sold the car for $350. Subsequently, that purchaser sold the car to another person for $500. The evidence also shows that Wilson told the investigating police officer that he thought something was wrong because he was given the car. Moreover, the evidence further shows that Wilson did not register the car in his name while it was in his possession or purchase new license tags. The jury found Wilson guilty and recited on their verdict that "the defendant may not have known, but he should have known, that the car was stolen."
A conviction for violation of OCGA § 16-8-7 may be sustained if the evidence shows that the defendant received, disposed of, or retained stolen property which he knew or should have known was stolen, and the offense may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Pruiett v. State, 159 Ga.App. 396, 397, 283 S.E.2d 625.
Under our law, motions for a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law (OCGA § 17-9-1(a); Taylor v. State, 252 Ga. 125, 312 S.E.2d 311); on appeal a reviewing court may consider all the evidence in the case (Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 375, 219 S.E.2d 743), and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527, 314 S.E.2d 436. If a verdict is based upon circumstantial evidence, and the jury is authorized to find the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendant's guilt, the verdict will not be disturbed unless the verdict is insupportable as a matter of law. Pattillo v. State, 250 Ga. 510, 512, 299 S.E.2d 710; Jones v. State, 165 Ga.App. 36, 38, 299 S.E.2d 576. As we find that the evidence discussed above did not demand a directed verdict of acquittal, the trial court did not err by denying Wilson's motion.
Wilson's contention that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-21 is also without merit. Our law vests in the trial judge alone the discretion to grant a new trial because the verdict might be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence, and this court has no such power. Dixon v. State, 192 Ga.App. 845, 846, 386 S.E.2d 719. Based upon the evidence discussed above, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Wilson's motion for a new trial.
Further, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eason v. State, A98A2149.
...the verdict will not be disturbed. Walker v. State, 214 Ga.App. 691, 692-693(1), 448 S.E.2d 924 (1994); see also Wilson v. State, 211 Ga.App. 791, 792(1), 440 S.E.2d 534 (1994). 2. Defendant's second enumeration of error is that "[t]he Trial Court erred in requiring the defendant to go to t......
-
Miller v. State
...the defendant's knowledge may be deduced. Prather v. State, 116 Ga.App. 696(1), 158 S.E.2d 291 (1967). See also Wilson v. State, 211 Ga. App. 791, 793(3), 440 S.E.2d 534 (1994). Miller's inconsistent explanations, together with his knowledge of Maynard's character, authorized the jury to in......
-
In re Long
...was held with the witness present, King v. State, supra, 273 Ga. at 264, 539 S.E.2d 783, as this court did in Wilson v. State, 211 Ga.App. 791, 792-793(2), 440 S.E.2d 534 (1994). After noting that the statute did not require an evidentiary hearing, we held recently that a witness had suffic......
- Texaco, Inc. v. Youngbey