From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kimbro v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 8, 1980
264 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)





Illegal entry. Clarke Superior Court. Before Judge Barrow.

J. H. Affleck, Jr., for appellant.

Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

From a burglary conviction, appellant brings this appeal. The sole enumeration of error is the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal. It is urged that the state's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction.

The state presented two witnesses who testified that on the night in question they heard the sound of breaking glass and left their home to investigate. An individual was observed to enter a laundromat through a broken glass door. The individual, after gaining entry, then attempted to break into a juke box. One of the witnesses then left to call the police. As the police car approached, the individual in the laundromat began to flee across the street, holding a tire tool and he was then recognized as one Lonnie Lamar Rogers. At that point, another individual, identified as appellant, was noticed to be waiting across the street from the laundromat in a gas station parking lot. Rogers and appellant were then observed to flee together and hide in some nearby furniture crates.

Upon the arrival of the police, the witnesses pointed out where the two men had hidden themselves. Rogers and appellant were discovered inside a box which also contained a tire tool and a pair of gloves. Footprints inside the laundromat matched those of Rogers.

While mere presence at the scene of the commission of a crime is not sufficient evidence to convict one of being a party thereto, "`presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.'" Jones v. State, 242 Ga. 893 ( 252 S.E.2d 394) (1979). In the instant case, there was evidence that Rogers, the individual identified as having actually committed the act of burglary, and appellant had been seen together on prior occasions. Indeed, one witness thought they had the same last name and were brothers. On the night of the burglary, appellant was observed in a position which authorized the inference that he was standing as a lookout while Rogers entered the laundromat. Simmons v. State, 129 Ga. App. 107 ( 198 S.E.2d 718) (1973). After Rogers left the burgled premises, appellant fled the scene with him. Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840 ( 213 S.E.2d 689) (1975); Johnson v. State, 148 Ga. App. 702 ( 252 S.E.2d 205) (1979). When discovered, appellant was apparently attempting to avoid detection, having fled with Rogers from the scene of the crime. Terry v. State, 130 Ga. App. 655 ( 204 S.E.2d 372) (1974). The evidence, though circumstantial, authorized the verdict. Miller v. State, 145 Ga. App. 653 ( 244 S.E.2d 608) (1978). See generally, Huncke v. State, 137 Ga. App. 299 ( 223 S.E.2d 492) (1976); Herrington v. State, 149 Ga. App. 130 ( 253 S.E.2d 810) (1979). After a review of the entire record, we find that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). The motion for directed verdict of acquittal was properly denied. Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604 ( 198 S.E.2d 311) (1973); Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975).

Judgment affirmed. Deen, C. J., and Shulman, J., concur.


Summaries of

Kimbro v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 8, 1980
264 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Kimbro v. State

Case Details

Full title:KIMBRO v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 8, 1980


264 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
264 S.E.2d 327

Citing Cases

Scott v. State

Thornton v. State, 119 Ga. 437, 439 ( 46 S.E. 640) (1903). Accord, Jones v. State, 242 Ga. 893 ( 252 S.E.2d…

Searcy v. State

Brown v. State, 163 Ga. 684, 685 (3), 691-692 ( 137 S.E. 31). Under the facts and circumstances of the case…