From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cummings v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 4, 1972
194 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)





Attempted robbery. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Shaw.

Glenn Zell, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Richard E. Hicks, Joel M. Feldman, for appellee.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury of the offense of attempt to commit armed robbery. He was sentenced to serve 10 years. Thereafter, motion for new trial was filed, amended, heard, and overruled. The appeal is from the judgment of conviction and sentence and the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended. Held:

The one contention of defendant is that the court erred in overruling the general grounds because the proved facts did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused. The defendant contends he was driving his own automobile and was requested by a companion, who was riding with him, to pull into a service station so the companion could buy cigarettes; and that while there his companion attempted to rob the service He contends he did not know of his companion's intention and that he took no part in the attempt to rob the service station. The State contended that a conspiracy existed between the defendant and his companion, and evidence was introduced which showed that defendant was driving a car which had a gun in the front seat; that the companion tried to rob the station, signaled for defendant to back up which defendant did, and then when the robbery attempt failed, the defendant drove off in a hurry, thus helping his companion to escape.

A conspiracy may be shown by circumstances which do not measure up as strongly as these. Walden v. State, 121 Ga. App. 142 (1) ( 173 S.E.2d 110). Unexplained flight has been held sufficient to convict. Prather v. State, 116 Ga. App. 696 (1) ( 158 S.E.2d 291).

In this case, the companion was jointly indicted with defendant, although defendant was tried separately. The jury had ample evidence from which they could have determined that a conspiracy existed between the driver and his companion; and, of course, one member of a conspiracy is fully responsible for what other members thereof do in pursuance of the conspiracy. Turner v. State, 138 Ga. 808, 812 ( 76 S.E. 349); Chambers v. State, 194 Ga. 773, 781 ( 22 S.E.2d 487); Ingram v. State, 204 Ga. 164, 183 ( 48 S.E.2d 891); Fincher v. State, 211 Ga. 89 (4) ( 84 S.E.2d 76).

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial, and the judgment of said court is

Affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.


Summaries of

Cummings v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 4, 1972
194 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Cummings v. State

Case Details


Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Dec 4, 1972


194 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
194 S.E.2d 629

Citing Cases

Munsford v. State

Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that there is still sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of…

Gentry v. State

There was, as indicated, conflict in the evidence, but the jury was authorized to give credibility to the…