Fair v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Hurston v. State

    202 Ga. App. 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 24 times
    In Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 414 S.E.2d 303 (1991) (physical precedent only), we concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence that the defendant passenger knew the car was stolen by establishing that: the defendant admitted doubting the car belonged to the driver; the steering wheel was damaged; the car was driven without keys; personal papers including the car registration in the owner's name were strewn about the disheveled interior; and a picture of the owner's daughter was displayed on a visor.

    Although Hurston was only a passenger in the vehicle, the inquiry does not end here, for in some circumstances, a passenger may possess, control or retain a vehicle for purposes of OCGA ยง 16-8-7. See, e.g., Fair v. State, 198 Ga. App. 437 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 626) (1991); Tolbert v. State, 194 Ga. App. 319 ( 390 S.E.2d 301) (1990). Here, there was sufficient evidence that Hurston exerted the requisite control over the vehicle in that Reese left Hurston alone in the car with the vehicle running when he went into the convenience store.

  2. Graham v. the State

    512 S.E.2d 921 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times

    Someone had attempted to conceal the nature of the property as stolen by substituting an Alabama license plate for Ms. Rider's North Carolina tag. The next day, defendant was driving a different vehicle, also with a stolen Alabama tag. This evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, supra, to authorize the jury's verdict that defendant possessed the motor vehicle under circumstances where he knew or, in the exercise of ordinary prudence, should have known the vehicle was stolen. Fair v. State, 198 Ga. App. 437, 438 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 626). (b) "It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge a firearm on the property of another person, firm, or corporation without having first obtained permission from the owner or lessee of the property."

  3. Greenwood v. State

    418 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 7 times
    In Greenwood v. State, 203 Ga. App. 901 (1) (418 SE2d 160) (1992), our Court of Appeals applied the rationale of Lingerfelt II and Lawrence in circumstances almost identical to this appeal. There, the court found the defendant was entitled to a mistrial because the State posed leading questions in the presence of the jury to a co-indictee who had been granted immunity but nevertheless refused to testify.

    The evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of theft by receiving stolen property. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, supra; Fair v. State, 198 Ga. App. 437, 438 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 626). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.