Young v. State, 25164

• Decision Date: 28 April 1969
• Docket Number: No. 25164,25164
• Citation: 225 Ga. 255,167 S.E.2d 586
• Parties: Harold McKinley YOUNG v. The STATE
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 586

167 S.E.2d 586

225 Ga. 255

Harold McKinley YOUNG v. The STATE

No. 25164.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 28, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

1. There was suffficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty.

2. The object complained of were sufficiently identified to be introduced into evidence.

3. The charge of the court on alibi did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights by depriving him of the presumption of innocence.

Emery L. Duffy, Savannah, for appellant.

Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Andrew J. Ryan, III, Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry H. Evans, Atlanta, for appellee.

ALMAND, Presiding Justice.

Harold M. Young was found guilty under an indictment charging him with robbery by the use of an offensive weapon (a pistol). A verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy was returned, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. His motion for a new trial upon the general grounds and several special grounds was overruled. This appeal is from his conviction and sentence, and from the overruling of his amended motion for a new trial.

In this opinion, we will deal only with the grounds for a new trial and enumerated errors argued orally or in the brief of counsel for the appellant.

1. The general grounds. Appellant insists that the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant was the person who robbed the two victims. The evidence discloses that the two victims of the alleged robbery, Alex Cole and Glenn Stokes, were employees of Holiday Inn in Savannah. Cole testified that at about three o'clock on the morning of June 10, 1968, a man pointed a pistol with a silver barrel at his head and took his wallet and watch. Then he was pistol whipped into unconsciousness. Stokes testified that he was robbed by a man pointing a pistol at him, and taking his wallet, which contained a small sum of money. He was then forced to open the cash register, from which the thief took all the money. Both Cole and Stokes testified that the man who robbed them had on yellow trousers. Stokes identified the defendant as the thief.

The police officers, on June 13, 1968, obtained a warrant to search the premises occupied by the defendant, where they found a pair of yellow pants, a Bulova watch, which Cole identified as the watch taken from his person, and a pistol.

The defendant, in his statement, said that he knew nothing about the robbery, and that at the time that the alleged robbery took place, he was on a boat, some distance away from the Holiday Inn.

The verdict of guilty is supported by the evidence.

2. The pistol, pair of yellow trousers, and the Bulova watch were sufficiently identified to authorize their introduction into evidence.

3. The court instructed the jury as follows, 'I charge you that alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission, and the range of the evidence in respect to the time and place must be such as reasonably precludes the presence of the accused at the time and place of the offense. If you believe that a crime was committed as charged, but you do not believe that the defendant was present at the time and place of such offense, you should acquit him on that ground. Alibi, as a defense, should be established to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt. When testimony on the subject of alibi is offered on the trial of a case it is the duty of the jury to take that testimony along with all the other evidence in the case in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. And if, considering the testimony alone or along with all the other evidence in the case, the jury should entertain a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant it is their duty to give him...