McKenzie v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

McKenzie v. State

202 S.E.2d 417, 231 Ga. 513, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 763

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 29, 1973

Docket28085

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 S.E.2d 417 (McKenzie 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

McKenzie v. State, 202 S.E.2d 417, 231 Ga. 513, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 763 (Ga. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Gunter, Justice.

The appellant here was convicted in the trial court for the crime of armed robbery, he received a five-year sentence, and he has appealed directly to this court.

Three errors are alleged to have been committed in the trial court. The first is that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty. Having reviewed the *514 transcript, we hold that this enumerated error is without merit.

Submitted July 12, 1973 Decided November 29, 1973 Rehearing denied December 17, 1973. Frank K. Martin, for appellant. E. Mullins Whisnant, District Attorney, for appellee.

The second enumerated error contends that the trial judge committed error in instructing the jury on the "law of conspiracy,” because conspiracy is now a separate crime in Georgia, and the appellant was not charged with having committed the crime of conspiracy. There is no merit in the contention. Code Ann. § 26-802 provides that "any party to a crime who did not directly commit the crime may be indicted, tried, convicted, and punished for commission of the crime upon proof that the crime was committed and that he was a party thereto.”

The third enumerated error attacks Georgia’s two-step criminal procedure statute (Code Ann. § 27-2534), applicable in all felony cases, as being in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This statute is not too vague so as to be unenforceable, as contended by the appellant; and this statute, which provides for imposition of a sentence by the trial judge in certain circumstances after a finding of guilty by the jury, does not deprive an accused of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

None of the alleged errors is ground for reversal of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gunter, Justice.

The appellant here was convicted in the trial court for the crime of armed robbery, he received a five-year sentence, and he has appealed directly to this court.

Three errors are alleged to have been committed in the trial court. The first is that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty. Having reviewed the *514 transcript, we hold that this enumerated error is without merit.

Submitted July 12, 1973 Decided November 29, 1973 Rehearing denied December 17, 1973. Frank K. Martin, for appellant. E. Mullins Whisnant, District Attorney, for appellee.

The second enumerated error contends that the trial judge committed error in instructing the jury on the "law of conspiracy,” because conspiracy is now a separate crime in Georgia, and the appellant was not charged with having committed the crime of conspiracy. There is no merit in the contention. Code Ann. § 26-802 provides that "any party to a crime who did not directly commit the crime may be indicted, tried, convicted, and punished for commission of the crime upon proof that the crime was committed and that he was a party thereto.”

The third enumerated error attacks Georgia’s two-step criminal procedure statute (Code Ann. § 27-2534), applicable in all felony cases, as being in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This statute is not too vague so as to be unenforceable, as contended by the appellant; and this statute, which provides for imposition of a sentence by the trial judge in certain circumstances after a finding of guilty by the jury, does not deprive an accused of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

None of the alleged errors is ground for reversal of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 S.E.2d 417, 231 Ga. 513, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-state-ga-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack