Oliver v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Oliver v. State

334 S.E.2d 388, 175 Ga. App. 809, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2196

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 5, 1985

Docket70433

StatusPublished

This text of 334 S.E.2d 388 (Oliver 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

Oliver v. State, 334 S.E.2d 388, 175 Ga. App. 809, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Oliver was convicted of shoplifting and his sole enumeration of error on appeal is that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on abandonment of intent.

James Key and Jean Perdue, security guards at Zayre’s Department Store, observed appellant pick up a stack of record albums and take them into a stockroom. Perdue followed appellant into the stockroom and when she entered appellant had nothing in his hands. He asked if there were any boxes he could have and when Perdue said no, appellant departed. He was arrested a few feet outside the stockroom by Key, and Perdue found the record albums, which had been slid under an exit door, outside the store. Appellant testified that he went to the store to collect some boxes and denied ever taking the records or having them in his possession.

Appellant argues that because he left the stockroom empty-handed it could be inferred that he initially intended to steal the records but abandoned that intent when he could not find an exit from the stockroom. Thus, appellant argues that the court should have charged the jury on abandonment of intent. This argument is without merit.

First, we note that appellant denied taking the records and denied entering the store with the intention of stealing records. Hence, there would be no criminal intent to abandon. Secondly, the crime was completed when appellant slid the records under the door to an area outside the store. When a completed crime is shown by the evidence it is not error to refuse to charge on abandonment of intent. Sanders v. State, 251 Ga. 70, 77 (4) (303 SE2d 13) (1983); Baker v. State, 157 Ga. App. 746, 747 (2) (278 SE2d 462) (1981).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. [810]*810Decided September 5, 1985. J. Douglas Willix, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Richard E. Hicks, Ann Mitchell, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Oliver was convicted of shoplifting and his sole enumeration of error on appeal is that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on abandonment of intent.

James Key and Jean Perdue, security guards at Zayre’s Department Store, observed appellant pick up a stack of record albums and take them into a stockroom. Perdue followed appellant into the stockroom and when she entered appellant had nothing in his hands. He asked if there were any boxes he could have and when Perdue said no, appellant departed. He was arrested a few feet outside the stockroom by Key, and Perdue found the record albums, which had been slid under an exit door, outside the store. Appellant testified that he went to the store to collect some boxes and denied ever taking the records or having them in his possession.

Appellant argues that because he left the stockroom empty-handed it could be inferred that he initially intended to steal the records but abandoned that intent when he could not find an exit from the stockroom. Thus, appellant argues that the court should have charged the jury on abandonment of intent. This argument is without merit.

First, we note that appellant denied taking the records and denied entering the store with the intention of stealing records. Hence, there would be no criminal intent to abandon. Secondly, the crime was completed when appellant slid the records under the door to an area outside the store. When a completed crime is shown by the evidence it is not error to refuse to charge on abandonment of intent. Sanders v. State, 251 Ga. 70, 77 (4) (303 SE2d 13) (1983); Baker v. State, 157 Ga. App. 746, 747 (2) (278 SE2d 462) (1981).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. [810]*810Decided September 5, 1985. J. Douglas Willix, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Richard E. Hicks, Ann Mitchell, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 S.E.2d 388, 175 Ga. App. 809, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-state-gactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack