Opinion
55160.
SUBMITTED JANUARY 18, 1978.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1978.
Burglary. Burke Superior Court. Before Judge Pierce.
Charles A. DeVaney, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of burglary. This appeal follows.
1. Appellant asserts that a charge on recent possession was unauthorized by the evidence, amounted to judicial comment on the evidence, and therefore constituted reversible error.
There was evidence to authorize a finding that the accused was observed carrying "something" in front of the burglary victim's house, that the accused got into a late model white Cadillac and drove away, that the homeowner discovered three jars of coins were no longer in his home, that the accused was apprehended by police officials five or six miles from the house in a late model white Cadillac which had broken down, and that three jars of coins identified as those taken from the house were found 20 or 30 feet from the road under a tree. The accused subsequently confessed to taking the jars of coins and placing the jars under a tree.
Under the circumstances, there was no error in charging on recent possession. Hudson v. State, 127 Ga. App. 452 (3) ( 193 S.E.2d 919).
Nor did the charge as given constitute an expression of opinion. "`To declare the law applicable to a given state of facts, is no expression or intimation of opinion as to whether any of the facts referred to do or do not exist in the case on trial.' [Cits.]" Coleman v. State, 137 Ga. App. 689 (4), 691 ( 224 S.E.2d 878).
2. The admission of statements made during an on-the-scene investigation wherein appellant admitted ownership of the white Cadillac was not error for any of the reasons asserted.
Pretermitting the question of whether Miranda warnings were given, such warnings were not necessary. Dasher v. State, 140 Ga. App. 517 (1) ( 231 S.E.2d 510).
A Jackson-Denno hearing (see Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 ( 84 SC 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908)) was not requested and not required. Dasher, supra, Division 2.
3. A Jackson-Denno hearing was held to determine the admissibility of a confession made by appellant. Appellant did not testify at that hearing. Appellant's counsel did not at that time raise any question as to anything improper regarding the voluntariness of the confession.
"After a careful review of the evidence submitted to the trial judge here, we feel that his determination was not clearly erroneous, and that the confession was properly admitted into evidence." High v. State, 233 Ga. 153 (1), 154 ( 210 S.E.2d 673).
4. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in failing (without a request) to charge the jury with the definition of "theft" (the felony involved in this alleged burglary). This enumeration is without merit. See Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98 (5) ( 80 S.E. 649); Anderson v. State, 226 Ga. 35 (2) ( 172 S.E.2d 424).
5. There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Gray v. State, 135 Ga. App. 253 (6) ( 217 S.E.2d 482). The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.