Jackson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jackson v. State

301 S.E.2d 661, 165 Ga. App. 444, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1900

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1983

Docket65286

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 S.E.2d 661 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 301 S.E.2d 661, 165 Ga. App. 444, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1900 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellant was indicted and tried for armed robbery, and was convicted of that offense by a jury. He appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on the guilty verdict.

1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. “ [T] he direct and circumstantial evidence, taken together, is sufficient to satisfy the [445]*445requirements of [OCGA § 16-2-20 (Code Ann. § 26-801)], that the defendant did intentionally aid and abet... in planning and carrying out the robbery... and that, therefore, he was concerned in, and may be convicted of, the commission of the crime. [Cits.]” Cunningham v. State, 235 Ga. 126, 127 (218 SE2d 854) (1975). See also Smith v. State, 154 Ga. App. 258 (1A) (267 SE2d 863) (1980).

Decided February 15, 1983. Elsie H. Griner, for appellant. Thomas H. Pittman, District Attorney, Arthur W. Leach, Robert C. Wilmot, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

2. Error is enumerated in the giving of the following charge to the jury: “If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment, then it would be your duty to find him guilty and in that event, the form of your verdict would be something like this: ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellant asserts that this charge invades the province of the jury which, according to appellant, would be authorized to acquit him even if there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

“This contention is without merit. If a unanimous jury, after having considered all of the evidence in the case, believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused parties are guilty of having committed the crimes charged, then the members of the jury do, pursuant to the law and the oaths taken as jurors, have a ‘duty’ to return verdicts of guilty. The use of the words ‘duty to convict’ in the context of the charge quoted above is not unfair, oppressive, or detrimental in any way to the accused.” Paschal v. State, 230 Ga. 859 (199 SE2d 803) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Quillian,.P. J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

Appellant was indicted and tried for armed robbery, and was convicted of that offense by a jury. He appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on the guilty verdict.

1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. “ [T] he direct and circumstantial evidence, taken together, is sufficient to satisfy the [445]*445requirements of [OCGA § 16-2-20 (Code Ann. § 26-801)], that the defendant did intentionally aid and abet... in planning and carrying out the robbery... and that, therefore, he was concerned in, and may be convicted of, the commission of the crime. [Cits.]” Cunningham v. State, 235 Ga. 126, 127 (218 SE2d 854) (1975). See also Smith v. State, 154 Ga. App. 258 (1A) (267 SE2d 863) (1980).

Decided February 15, 1983. Elsie H. Griner, for appellant. Thomas H. Pittman, District Attorney, Arthur W. Leach, Robert C. Wilmot, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

2. Error is enumerated in the giving of the following charge to the jury: “If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment, then it would be your duty to find him guilty and in that event, the form of your verdict would be something like this: ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellant asserts that this charge invades the province of the jury which, according to appellant, would be authorized to acquit him even if there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

“This contention is without merit. If a unanimous jury, after having considered all of the evidence in the case, believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused parties are guilty of having committed the crimes charged, then the members of the jury do, pursuant to the law and the oaths taken as jurors, have a ‘duty’ to return verdicts of guilty. The use of the words ‘duty to convict’ in the context of the charge quoted above is not unfair, oppressive, or detrimental in any way to the accused.” Paschal v. State, 230 Ga. 859 (199 SE2d 803) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Quillian,.P. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.E.2d 661, 165 Ga. App. 444, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack