Summary
In Pierce the defendant's contention that he had previously been on the premises to visit was negated by the victim's testimony that in the two years she had been there she had never seen him, thus leaving the ultimate question for the jury.
Summary of this case from Jeffares v. StateOpinion
55439.
SUBMITTED MARCH 1, 1978.
DECIDED APRIL 4, 1978.
Burglary. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Tidwell.
Horton J. Greene, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Gordon H. Miller, Thomas W. Thrash, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
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 time 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 S.E.2d 150) (1951); Anderson v. State, 120 Ga. App. 147 (1) ( 169 S.E.2d 629) (1969); Vaughn v. State, 136 Ga. App. 54 ( 220 S.E.2d 66) (1975).
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.