Pierce v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pierce v. State

244 S.E.2d 87, 145 Ga. App. 569, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2044

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1978

Docket55439

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 S.E.2d 87 (Pierce 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

Pierce v. State, 244 S.E.2d 87, 145 Ga. App. 569, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2044 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for burglary. The defendant contends that the state’s case rested solely on evidence that his fingerprints had been lifted from some broken window fragments found at the scene. He urges that this cannot support a conviction since he was able to explain the presence of these prints by his testimony that he had been on the premises often to visit a friend who lived in an apartment located in the same house.

The contention is without merit. The victim disputed the defendant’s explanation that he was a frequent visitor to the premises, testifying that in the two years she had lived there she had never seen him. Furthermore, at the [570]*570time of his arrest the defendant displayed considerable knowledge about the crime, which he said he had obtained by speaking with the perpetrators before and after the burglary. Along with the fingerprints, we hold that this evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. See generally Anthony v. State, 85 Ga. App. 119 (68 SE2d 150) (1951); Anderson v. State, 120 Ga. App. 147 (1) (169 SE2d 629) (1969); Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga. App. 54 (220 SE2d 66) (1975).

Submitted March 1, 1978 Decided April 4, 1978. Horton J. Greene, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Gordon H. Miller, Thomas W. Thrash, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for burglary. The defendant contends that the state’s case rested solely on evidence that his fingerprints had been lifted from some broken window fragments found at the scene. He urges that this cannot support a conviction since he was able to explain the presence of these prints by his testimony that he had been on the premises often to visit a friend who lived in an apartment located in the same house.

The contention is without merit. The victim disputed the defendant’s explanation that he was a frequent visitor to the premises, testifying that in the two years she had lived there she had never seen him. Furthermore, at the [570]*570time of his arrest the defendant displayed considerable knowledge about the crime, which he said he had obtained by speaking with the perpetrators before and after the burglary. Along with the fingerprints, we hold that this evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. See generally Anthony v. State, 85 Ga. App. 119 (68 SE2d 150) (1951); Anderson v. State, 120 Ga. App. 147 (1) (169 SE2d 629) (1969); Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga. App. 54 (220 SE2d 66) (1975).

Submitted March 1, 1978 Decided April 4, 1978. Horton J. Greene, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Gordon H. Miller, Thomas W. Thrash, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.E.2d 87, 145 Ga. App. 569, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack