Opinion
33253, 33254.
DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 1950.
Robbery by intimidation; from Gwinnett Superior Court — Judge Pratt. July 1, 1950.
J. Roy Merritt, A. G. Liles, for plaintiffs in error.
Hope D. Stark, Solicitor-General, contra.
1. "Drunkenness shall not be an excuse for any crime or misdemeanor, unless such drunkenness was occasioned by the fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person for the purpose of having a crime perpetrated." Code, § 26-403. There being evidence from which the jury might have found that the defendants did not appear drunk at the time the crime was committed, and other evidence to the effect that their intoxication was voluntary, if they were intoxicated, such intoxication is no defense.
2. The evidence supports the verdict, and it had the approval of the trial court. No error of law appearing, the verdict will not be disturbed by this court.
Judgment affirmed. MacIntyre, P.J., and Gardner, J., concur.
DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 1950.
Newton Gunning, James Garmon, Ann Walls, and Ann Hanson were jointly indicted and tried in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County for robbery. From the evidence introduced at the trial, the jury was authorized to find facts substantially as follows: that one C. H. Townsend, the prosecutor, owned a restaurant and service station known as the Little Casino in Gwinnett County; that at about 5 p. m. on January 11, he and his helper were working in their establishment when the defendants Gunning and Garmon entered; that they did not appear to these men to be drunk at that time; that they asked whether they could take a drink, and on being told that they could not they went outside; that in a few minutes they returned and played the pin-ball machine; that Gunning then pointed a gun at them telling them not to move; that Garmon took approximately $27 in change and a revolver from the cash drawer, and Gunning pulled the telephone from the wall; that the defendants escaped and drove to another place, where the defendant, Ann Hanson, took the silver, wrapped in paper wrappers marked "Tuffy," and had it exchanged for paper money, and that this money was divided between the four defendants. There was testimony that the men had drunk a considerable amount of liquor during the day. The women insisted that they knew nothing about the holdup until after it had occurred, whereas the male defendants insisted that the women had suggested it to them and had stated that the establishment was run by a little fellow and would be easy to rob. They also insisted that their intoxication was procured by their female companions in order to get them to commit the robbery. They, however, each vividly recalled conversations had with their companions immediately prior to the robbery, the details of the robbery itself, and the facts which occurred thereafter. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each defendant. They each filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds only, and the exceptions here are to the judgments overruling these motions.