Gainey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gainey v. State

287 S.E.2d 785, 161 Ga. App. 343, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1870

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1982

Docket63405

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 S.E.2d 785 (Gainey 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

Gainey v. State, 287 S.E.2d 785, 161 Ga. App. 343, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1870 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Chief Judge.

The' defendant appeals her conviction for robbery by intimidation, armed robbery, 2 counts of aggravated assault on a police officer and aggravated assault. Held:

1. The defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery of the “Original Smorgasbord” which was the first count of the indictment. Although the defendant was indicted under the first count for armed robbery she was convicted of a lesser included offense — robbery by intimidation. See Code Ann. § 26-1902 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1298; as amended through Ga. L. 1976, p. 1359). The evidence was more than sufficient to convict for robbery by intimidation.

2. The defendant contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant was an accomplice or co-conspirator in the armed róbbery of the “Original Smorgasbord.” The state did not attempt to show that the defendant actually perpetrated all the acts charged but sought to prove that she was a member of a conspiracy and acted as a driver of the “getaway” vehicle. The evidence offered showed more than mere presence at the scene of the crime. Instead the proof sustained the state’s contention that the defendant aided and abetted in the commission of the criminal acts.

The evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact as to defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. *344 Thomas H. Pittman, District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Quillian, Chief Judge.

The' defendant appeals her conviction for robbery by intimidation, armed robbery, 2 counts of aggravated assault on a police officer and aggravated assault. Held:

1. The defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery of the “Original Smorgasbord” which was the first count of the indictment. Although the defendant was indicted under the first count for armed robbery she was convicted of a lesser included offense — robbery by intimidation. See Code Ann. § 26-1902 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1298; as amended through Ga. L. 1976, p. 1359). The evidence was more than sufficient to convict for robbery by intimidation.

2. The defendant contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant was an accomplice or co-conspirator in the armed róbbery of the “Original Smorgasbord.” The state did not attempt to show that the defendant actually perpetrated all the acts charged but sought to prove that she was a member of a conspiracy and acted as a driver of the “getaway” vehicle. The evidence offered showed more than mere presence at the scene of the crime. Instead the proof sustained the state’s contention that the defendant aided and abetted in the commission of the criminal acts.

The evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact as to defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. *344 Thomas H. Pittman, District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 S.E.2d 785, 161 Ga. App. 343, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gainey-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack