Maddox v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maddox v. State

253 S.E.2d 456, 149 Ga. App. 110, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1743

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 1979

Docket57118

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 S.E.2d 456 (Maddox 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

Maddox v. State, 253 S.E.2d 456, 149 Ga. App. 110, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1743 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his burglary conviction. Held:

1. Police officers answered a burglary alarm call, the defendant was spotted running from the scene of the burglary; the burglary scene revealed two chain saws left outside, footprints outside, and broken glass knocked inward from which entry had apparently been made. The [111]*111defendant’s shoes introduced into evidence contained markings similar to those revealed by pictures taken of the footprints. These facts were sufficient to present a jury issue. Little v. State, 88 Ga. App. 581 (77 SE2d 75); Pryor v. State, 139 Ga. App. 814 (229 SE2d 670); Gregory v. State, 80 Ga. 269 (7 SE 222). They constitute more than mere presence and flight as described in Denham v. State, 144 Ga. App. 373 (241 SE2d 295).

Submitted January 16, 1979 — Decided February 21, 1979. Jack H. Affleck, Jr., for appellants. Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The trial judge’s charge sufficiently and accurately dealt with the subjects of flight, presence at the scene and their effect.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his burglary conviction. Held:

1. Police officers answered a burglary alarm call, the defendant was spotted running from the scene of the burglary; the burglary scene revealed two chain saws left outside, footprints outside, and broken glass knocked inward from which entry had apparently been made. The [111]*111defendant’s shoes introduced into evidence contained markings similar to those revealed by pictures taken of the footprints. These facts were sufficient to present a jury issue. Little v. State, 88 Ga. App. 581 (77 SE2d 75); Pryor v. State, 139 Ga. App. 814 (229 SE2d 670); Gregory v. State, 80 Ga. 269 (7 SE 222). They constitute more than mere presence and flight as described in Denham v. State, 144 Ga. App. 373 (241 SE2d 295).

Submitted January 16, 1979 — Decided February 21, 1979. Jack H. Affleck, Jr., for appellants. Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The trial judge’s charge sufficiently and accurately dealt with the subjects of flight, presence at the scene and their effect.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 S.E.2d 456, 149 Ga. App. 110, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-state-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack