Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Solomon v. State

Solomon v. State

350 S.E.2d 35, 180 Ga. App. 636, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2261
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 22, 1986
Docket72530
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 350 S.E.2d 35 (Solomon 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
Solomon v. State, 350 S.E.2d 35, 180 Ga. App. 636, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2261 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Beasley, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of burglary (OCGA § 16-7-1), possession of tools for the commission of a crime — burglary (OCGA § 16-7-20) and possession of firearms by a convicted felon (OCGA § 16-11-131). He had been indicted and tried along with a codefendant whose conviction we affirmed in Bogan v. State, 177 Ga. App. 614 (340 SE2d 256) (1986).

1. Defendant argues solely the authorization for his conviction for possession of burglary tools, principally contending an insufficiency of evidence to show he actually or constructively possessed the tools.

“Conspirators are responsible for the acts of each other in carrying out the common purpose or design, although such acts may constitute another criminal offense. . . . [W]here two or more persons enter into a conspiracy to commit burglary, and in attempting to carry out such felonious design either of them has in his possession *637 burglary tools, such possession is the possession of all, and each is guilty of a violation of the Code, § 26-2701 [now OCGA § 16-7-20], prohibiting and punishing the possession of such tools.” Kryder v. State, 57 Ga. App. 200, 202 (3) (194 SE 890) (1938). Accord Cowart v. State, 92 Ga. App. 253, 256 (2) (88 SE2d 208) (1955).

Decided October 22, 1986. Robert E. Little, for appellant. Willis B. Sparks III, District Attorney, Wayne G. Tillis, Robin Odom, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

There was evidence that defendant and two others jointly participated in the commission of the burglary. OCGA § 16-2-20. Each, then, was responsible for the acts of others in carrying out the common purpose as if he himself had committed the act. Smith v. State, 142 Ga. App. 810, 811 (3) (237 SE2d 216) (1977); Painter v. State, 237 Ga. 30, 34 (226 SE2d 578) (1976).

The evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact of the existence of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Hogan v. Atkins, 224 Ga. 358, 359 (162 SE2d 395) (1968); Bogan v. State, supra.

2. Any remaining enumerations of error either are meritless or have been abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Foster.
282 P.3d 560 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2012)
Spradlin v. State
631 S.E.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Flanagan v. State
592 S.E.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Jones v. State
583 S.E.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
State v. Brown
37 P.3d 572 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2001)
Crumpton v. State
523 S.E.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Walker v. State
444 S.E.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Douglas v. State
390 S.E.2d 98 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
350 S.E.2d 35, 180 Ga. App. 636, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-state-gactapp-1986.