Bairentine v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bairentine v. State

274 S.E.2d 736, 156 Ga. App. 341, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2971

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 6, 1980

Docket60670

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 736 (Bairentine v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bairentine v. State, 274 S.E.2d 736, 156 Ga. App. 341, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2971 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Defendant appeals her conviction of five counts of forgery in the first degree (Code Ann. § 26-1701). We affirm.

1. It is defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the lesser included offense of forgery in the second degree (Code Ann. § 26-1702) and criminal issuance of a bad check (Code Ann. § 26-1704).

Absent a timely written request for such charges, the trial court’s failure to charge on lesser crimes is not error. See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1 (2) (222 SE2d 354).

2. Nor do we find reversible error on the general grounds. While defendant admitted passing the alleged forged checks, she denied that it was her iritent to defraud in so doing. The evidence on this issue was in conflict. “[T]he jury resolved the issue against the appellant, and the evidence adequately supports the verdict of the jury.” Harris v. State, 149 Ga. App. 374 (254 SE2d 518). We thus conclude that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).

Finding no error for any reason assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shulman, Judge.

Defendant appeals her conviction of five counts of forgery in the first degree (Code Ann. § 26-1701). We affirm.

1. It is defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the lesser included offense of forgery in the second degree (Code Ann. § 26-1702) and criminal issuance of a bad check (Code Ann. § 26-1704).

Absent a timely written request for such charges, the trial court’s failure to charge on lesser crimes is not error. See State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1 (2) (222 SE2d 354).

2. Nor do we find reversible error on the general grounds. While defendant admitted passing the alleged forged checks, she denied that it was her iritent to defraud in so doing. The evidence on this issue was in conflict. “[T]he jury resolved the issue against the appellant, and the evidence adequately supports the verdict of the jury.” Harris v. State, 149 Ga. App. 374 (254 SE2d 518). We thus conclude that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).

Finding no error for any reason assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 736, 156 Ga. App. 341, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bairentine-v-state-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack