Adams v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Nelson v. State

    325 Ga. App. 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court instructed the jury in accordance with the agreed upon charge, and neither the State nor defense counsel posed any objection to the charge as given. Nelson now argues that theft by receiving is not a lesser included offense of theft by taking, and that, therefore, the trial court committed plain and obvious error by giving the requested charge because he was not separately charged with that offense, and it was not otherwise included within the allegationsof the charging accusation.Marriott v. State, 320 Ga.App. 58, 62(1), 739 S.E.2d 68 (2013) (theft by receiving and theft by taking may be charged in the alternative); Adams v. State, 164 Ga.App. 295, 296–297(2), 297 S.E.2d 77 (1982) (separate counts setting forth theft by receiving and robbery are permitted). We have decided numerous cases that stand for the proposition that theft by receiving is not a lesser included offense of theft by taking, and, as some of these cases explain, these offenses are mutually exclusive.

  2. Brown v. State

    199 Ga. App. 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 11 times

    " (Cit.)... . The gravamen of the offense of receiving stolen (property) is that the defendant purchased or obtained (it) from a third person, knowing at the time that (it) had been stolen by another. (Cit.)" Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296 ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982). Further, "`"it has uniformly been held that burglary, larceny or robbery is an entirely separate offense from that of receiving stolen (property) and that there can be no merger.

  3. Hemphill v. State

    242 Ga. App. 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 9 times
    Approving a pattern jury instruction requiring "that the defendant had knowledge that the crime of armed robbery was being committed" and noting that the defendant—who was the driver—"knew that his accomplices had guns"

    As [Hemphill] was not charged with receiving stolen property, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on such offense. See Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296-297 (2) ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982); Lee v. State, 259 Ga. 230, 232 (3) ( 378 S.E.2d 855) (1989).Bethel v. State, 232 Ga. App. 82, 84-85 (2) ( 500 S.E.2d 595) (1998).

  4. Bethel v. State

    500 S.E.2d 595 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 9 times

    As Bethel was not charged with receiving stolen property, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on such offense. See Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296-297 (2) ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982); Lee v. State, 259 Ga. 230, 232 (3) ( 378 S.E.2d 855) (1989). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P.J., and Eldridge, J., concur.

  5. Carter v. State

    224 Ga. App. 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    Such a verdict is mandated unless, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find each essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, supra at 319 (III) (B); Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296 (1) ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982). Appellants' motions were properly denied in light of the resolution of conflicts in the evidence against defendants by the factfinder and the sufficiency of evidence of each essential element of the crime.

  6. Redding v. State

    192 Ga. App. 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    Theft by receiving and theft by taking are two separate crimes. Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295 ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982). Theft by receiving is not a lesser included offense of theft by taking.

  7. Faust v. State

    189 Ga. App. 426 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 11 times

    Defendant was indicted for burglary only. Theft by receiving stolen property is not a lesser included offense of burglary. State v. Bolton, 144 Ga. App. 797 (1) ( 242 S.E.2d 378) (1978); see also Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295 (2) ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982); Wells v. State, 127 Ga. App. 109 ( 192 S.E.2d 567) (1972). Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of theft by receiving stolen property.

  8. Beck v. State

    353 S.E.2d 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    On review of defendant's motion for new trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296 (1) ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982). Applying that standard, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  9. Cauthen v. State

    177 Ga. App. 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    ' Lee v. State, 247 Ga. 411, 412 (6) ( 276 S.E.2d 590) (1981)." Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296 ( 297 S.E.2d 77) (1982). Appellant contends that other passengers in the vehicle had equal access to drugs found in the briefcase.

  10. Whitley v. State

    336 S.E.2d 301 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times
    In Whitley, the conduct of defendant was viewed as the "omission to act" portion of OCGA § 16-2-1 when there was a statutory duty to take positive steps.

    Where the jury is authorized to find, as it was here, prior knowledge and presence of a police officer at the scene, whose duty it was to prevent crime, the jury may lawfully find his conduct amounted to aiding and abetting the commission of the offense. People v. Nelson, supra; cf. Slack v. State, 159 Ga. App. 185, 189 ( 283 S.E.2d 64); Adams v. State, 164 Ga. App. 295, 296 ( 297 S.E.2d 77); see generally 21 AmJur2d 87, Crim. Law, § 6. The trial court did not err in denying defendant Whitley's motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the trial.