FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
June 18, 2013
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0356. HALL v. STATE. DO - 014 C
DOYLE , Presiding Judge.
A jury found Brandon Hall guilty of unlawful possession of a destructive
device,1 possession of methamphetamine,2 possession of a knife during the
commission of a felony,3 possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,4
loitering and prowling,5 possession of an explosive device by a convicted felon,6 and
1 OCGA § 16-7-88 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-13-30 (a). 3 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (4). 4 Id. 5 OCGA § 16-11-36 (a). 6 OCGA § 16-7-83 (a). possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.7 Following the order granting the
withdrawal of his motion for new trial ,8 Hall directly appeals, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Construed in favor of the verdict,9 the evidence shows that late one evening,
Hall arrived at a diner and remained for six to seven hours, intermittently drinking
coffee, eating breakfast, and falling asleep. The night manager had to wake Hall
several times throughout the night. After the shift change, the morning manager
arrived and noticed that Hall was openly armed with two pistols and a machete at his
waistline in open view. The manager called 911 and requested the assistance of the
police. The police found Hall standing outside the diner and detained him, recovering
two pistols, a bag of methamphetamine, a large serrated knife, a black powder loader,
gun powder, a flare gun, flashlights, BB guns, , and a pill bottle .
The police also seized documents, which referenced hate groups and contained
the phrases “blow the switch yard at the mothball power plant,” and “you bitches are
7 OCGA § 16-11-131 (b). 8 See Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196, 197 (1) (552 SE2d 818) (2001) (allowing a direct appeal following a court order disposing of defendant’s motion to withdraw his motion for new trial). 9 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998).
2 dead for murdering my family . . . this should really be an eye opener you suck and
chug donkey c[---] . . . f[---] off and die and drink some acid.”
The State presented a forensic chemist from the FBI who testified that Hall’s
pill bottle contained black powder, “a low explosive.” A detective testified to
processing a metallic capsule that contained black powder, a .22 caliber shell, and
eight other bullets. An officer with bomb training testified that the police did not
discover a .22 caliber weapon in Hall’s possession, indicating that the logical purpose
of the shells was to act as a source of secondary shrapnel in an explosive device.
Further, the State presented an explosives expert who opined that explosive devices
can be as small as a pill bottle and that the threads can and often will result in friction
leading to an explosion.
Hall was indicted for multiple counts arising from the weapons and
methamphetamine, and a jury found Hall guilty on all but two counts (explosive
device and concealed weapon), which were nolle prossed. After he withdrew his
motion for new trial, Hall filed this appeal.
Hall challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the following grounds: (1)
with respect to unlawful possession of a destructive device, the State failed to prove
that the black powder was intended for the purpose of explosion or that Hall had the
3 knowledge or intent to injure an individual; (2) with respect to the possession of a
firearm counts, the State introduced no evidence that the black powder revolvers Hall
possessed would or could be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or electrical charge; and (3) the evidence of loitering and prowling was
insufficient because Hall was a customer of the diner.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime[s] charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.10
1. Hall contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of
unlawful possession of a destructive device because the State failed to prove that the
10 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
4 black powder was intended for the purpose of explosion or with the knowledge or
intent to injure an individual. We disagree.
OCGA § 16-7-88 (a) provides in pertinent part that it is illegal for a person to
“possess, transport, or receive . . . any destructive device or explosive with the
knowledge or intent that it will be used to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or
to destroy any public building.”
It is undisputed that Hall was in possession of an explosive, i.e., the pill capsule
containing black powder, “a low explosive.” Further, the police found several letters
written by Hall that threatened to kill at least one person and to “blow the switch yard
at the mothball power plant.” Additionally, an officer trained in explosives testified
that the purpose of the bullets in the pill bottle containing black powder was to
provide a secondary source of shrapnel that could cause serious injury. The
possession of the powder stored in a container which could ignite it, coupled with
Hall’s threatening writings, satisfied the State’s burden.11
11 See Turner v. State, 246 Ga. App. 49, 51 (1) (b) (539 SE2d 553) (2000) (holding that possession of explosive devices combined with handwritten notes indicating potential violent acts is sufficient to support a conviction of manufacturing a destructive device).
5 2. Hall contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon because the State introduced no evidence that the revolvers Hall
possessed would or could be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
June 18, 2013
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0356. HALL v. STATE. DO - 014 C
DOYLE , Presiding Judge.
A jury found Brandon Hall guilty of unlawful possession of a destructive
device,1 possession of methamphetamine,2 possession of a knife during the
commission of a felony,3 possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,4
loitering and prowling,5 possession of an explosive device by a convicted felon,6 and
1 OCGA § 16-7-88 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-13-30 (a). 3 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b) (4). 4 Id. 5 OCGA § 16-11-36 (a). 6 OCGA § 16-7-83 (a). possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.7 Following the order granting the
withdrawal of his motion for new trial ,8 Hall directly appeals, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Construed in favor of the verdict,9 the evidence shows that late one evening,
Hall arrived at a diner and remained for six to seven hours, intermittently drinking
coffee, eating breakfast, and falling asleep. The night manager had to wake Hall
several times throughout the night. After the shift change, the morning manager
arrived and noticed that Hall was openly armed with two pistols and a machete at his
waistline in open view. The manager called 911 and requested the assistance of the
police. The police found Hall standing outside the diner and detained him, recovering
two pistols, a bag of methamphetamine, a large serrated knife, a black powder loader,
gun powder, a flare gun, flashlights, BB guns, , and a pill bottle .
The police also seized documents, which referenced hate groups and contained
the phrases “blow the switch yard at the mothball power plant,” and “you bitches are
7 OCGA § 16-11-131 (b). 8 See Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196, 197 (1) (552 SE2d 818) (2001) (allowing a direct appeal following a court order disposing of defendant’s motion to withdraw his motion for new trial). 9 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998).
2 dead for murdering my family . . . this should really be an eye opener you suck and
chug donkey c[---] . . . f[---] off and die and drink some acid.”
The State presented a forensic chemist from the FBI who testified that Hall’s
pill bottle contained black powder, “a low explosive.” A detective testified to
processing a metallic capsule that contained black powder, a .22 caliber shell, and
eight other bullets. An officer with bomb training testified that the police did not
discover a .22 caliber weapon in Hall’s possession, indicating that the logical purpose
of the shells was to act as a source of secondary shrapnel in an explosive device.
Further, the State presented an explosives expert who opined that explosive devices
can be as small as a pill bottle and that the threads can and often will result in friction
leading to an explosion.
Hall was indicted for multiple counts arising from the weapons and
methamphetamine, and a jury found Hall guilty on all but two counts (explosive
device and concealed weapon), which were nolle prossed. After he withdrew his
motion for new trial, Hall filed this appeal.
Hall challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the following grounds: (1)
with respect to unlawful possession of a destructive device, the State failed to prove
that the black powder was intended for the purpose of explosion or that Hall had the
3 knowledge or intent to injure an individual; (2) with respect to the possession of a
firearm counts, the State introduced no evidence that the black powder revolvers Hall
possessed would or could be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or electrical charge; and (3) the evidence of loitering and prowling was
insufficient because Hall was a customer of the diner.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime[s] charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.10
1. Hall contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of
unlawful possession of a destructive device because the State failed to prove that the
10 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
4 black powder was intended for the purpose of explosion or with the knowledge or
intent to injure an individual. We disagree.
OCGA § 16-7-88 (a) provides in pertinent part that it is illegal for a person to
“possess, transport, or receive . . . any destructive device or explosive with the
knowledge or intent that it will be used to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or
to destroy any public building.”
It is undisputed that Hall was in possession of an explosive, i.e., the pill capsule
containing black powder, “a low explosive.” Further, the police found several letters
written by Hall that threatened to kill at least one person and to “blow the switch yard
at the mothball power plant.” Additionally, an officer trained in explosives testified
that the purpose of the bullets in the pill bottle containing black powder was to
provide a secondary source of shrapnel that could cause serious injury. The
possession of the powder stored in a container which could ignite it, coupled with
Hall’s threatening writings, satisfied the State’s burden.11
11 See Turner v. State, 246 Ga. App. 49, 51 (1) (b) (539 SE2d 553) (2000) (holding that possession of explosive devices combined with handwritten notes indicating potential violent acts is sufficient to support a conviction of manufacturing a destructive device).
5 2. Hall contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon because the State introduced no evidence that the revolvers Hall
possessed would or could be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or electrical charge. We disagree.
In Senior v. State,12 this Court held as follows:
Georgia law prohibits the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The term “firearm ‘includes’ any handgun, rifle, shotgun, or other weapon which will or can be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge.” This Court has previously declined to interpret Georgia’s statute to require proof that a weapon found in the possession of a convicted felon is actually functional when that weapon is one that is enumerated within the statutory definition of a firearm, i.e., a handgun, rifle or shotgun. We also decline to do so now. Thus, in order to support [Hall’s] conviction, the State needed only to prove that [Hall] was a convicted felon and possessed a firearm as defined above.13
The officer found Hall outside the diner in possession of two black powder
pistols. Hall does not challenge his status as a felon, and under Senior, the pistols he
12 277 Ga. App. 197 (626 SE2d 169) (2006). 13 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 197-198.
6 possessed sufficed to support his conviction for possessing firearms during the
commission of a felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.14
3. Hall contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of
loitering and prowling because he was a customer of the diner. We disagree.
Under Georgia law, “[a] person commits the offense of loitering or prowling
when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals
under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate
concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”15 The jury was
authorized to find that there was an immediate concern for the safety of persons or
property in the vicinity in light of Hall’s prolonged presence over several hours, and
the fact that he openly displayed multiple deadly weapons and possessed other
dangerous items in his bag. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find
sufficient evidence to affirm the loitering or prowling conviction.
Judgment affirmed. McFadden and Boggs, JJ., concur.
14 See id. 15 OCGA § 16-11-36.