Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Campbell v. State

Campbell v. State

226 S.E.2d 601, 237 Ga. 76, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1156
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 9, 1976
Docket31040
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 226 S.E.2d 601 (Campbell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campbell v. State, 226 S.E.2d 601, 237 Ga. 76, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1156 (Ga. 1976).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Phillip Eugene Campbell appeals his conviction for armed robbery. For the appeal of his co-defendant James Valenzule, alias Richard George Jung, see Jung v. State, 237 Ga. 73 (1976).

1. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the in-court identification of this defendant by the victim was not rendered inadmissible by the pre-trial identification procedure. Heyward v. State, 236 Ga. 526 (1976). It follows that the evidence supports the verdict.

[77]*77Argued May 10, 1976 Decided June 9, 1976. Grogan, Jones, Lay field & Swearingen, John C. Swearingen, Jr., for appellant. E. Mullins Whisnant, District Attorney, William J. Smith, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harrison Kohler, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

2. Where a robbery victim testifies at one point that the robbery occurred at her home and testifies at another point that her home is in a certain county, venue is shown. It is not necessary for the state to prove that the victim did not have more than one home. If venue is an issue in the case, the victim may be cross examined upon this subject.

3. The transcript shows that during the course of the trial the trial judge made certain remarks and inquiries in ruling on objections to evidence, in questioning counsel as to the purpose of questions and as to whether they had objections to the admission of physical evidence, and in announcing that certain objections would be deemed to be continuing objections. We have examined the transcript and find no violation of Code Ann. § 81-1104.

4. The charge of the court as to reconciling conflicts in the evidence was not error. Gordy v. State, 236 Ga. 723 (225 SE2d 287) (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Nimat Shahid v. Sufyan Esaam
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
State v. Larocque
489 S.E.2d 806 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Abiff v. State
365 S.E.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1988)
Cargill v. State
340 S.E.2d 891 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1986)
Miller v. State
331 S.E.2d 616 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Maynard v. State
317 S.E.2d 666 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Fugitt v. State
307 S.E.2d 471 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1983)
Armstrong v. State
286 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Alexander v. State
279 S.E.2d 691 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Phelps v. State
265 S.E.2d 53 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Ward v. State
236 S.E.2d 365 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Lingerfelt v. State
233 S.E.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Worley v. State
228 S.E.2d 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
Campbell v. State
226 S.E.2d 601 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 S.E.2d 601, 237 Ga. 76, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-state-ga-1976.