Heflin v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. State

    635 S.E.2d 577 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of tools for the commission of a crime when, inter alia , the defendant was present at the scene where cars were broken into with the kind of tools that the defendant possessed and stolen items were found in his vehicle

    Although questions about the reasonableness of hypotheses are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence, hearsay testimony of a deputy and the testimony of Hunter that he himself committed the crime do not create a reasonable hypothesis of Walker's guilt. Smith v. State, 280 Ga. 161, 162 (1) ( 625 SE2d 766) (2006). The State also argues that, while evidence of stolen articles in Walker's vehicle supports a finding of the requisite intent, lack of such evidence does not automatically mean no intent may be inferred, citing Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 358 SE2d 298) (1987). In Heflin, however, the defendant admitted that he attempted to break into an area in an automobile in which valuables might be stored.

  2. Palmer v. State

    243 Ga. App. 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 16 times

    Whether a defendant has the requisite intent to commit a crime is a question for the jury. See Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 358 S.E.2d 298) (1987). See Pound v. State, 230 Ga. App. 467, 468 (2) ( 496 S.E.2d 769) (1998).

  3. Helton v. State

    508 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    The record shows that Helton entered the victim's car, opened the glove compartment, and was examining one of the victim's books when he was discovered. Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 358 S.E.2d 298) (1987). Judgment affirmed. Johnson, P.J., and Smith, J., concur.

  4. Pound v. State

    496 S.E.2d 769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Shields v. State, 202 Ga. App. 659, 661 (3) ( 415 S.E.2d 478) (1992). As stated in Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 358 S.E.2d 298) (1987), "`[a]s a general rule the state must, of necessity, rely on circumstantial evidence in proving intent.' Kinney v. State, 155 Ga. App. 95 (1), ( 270 S.E.2d 209) (1980). While evidence that valuables were present in the trunk is sufficient to support a finding of the requisite intent ( Fields v. State, 167 Ga. App. 400 (1), ( 306 S.E.2d 695) (1983)), lack of such evidence does not automatically result in a lack of evidence from which intent may be inferred.

  5. Hawkins v. State

    465 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    Hawkins completed the offense concerning the automobile at the time he entered the pickup truck with the intent of taking the items stored inside it. See Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149 ( 358 S.E.2d 298) (1987). In addition to intent, theft by taking requires the actual appropriation of goods.

  6. Woods v. State

    396 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    Any error in admitting the officer's testimony was manifestly harmless since the evidence was more than sufficient to establish that defendant entered the automobile with the requisite unlawful intent. See OCGA ยง 16-8-18; Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 358 S.E.2d 298). 2.

  7. Reynolds v. State

    374 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    ]' [Cit.]" Heflin v. State, 183 Ga. App. 149 (1) ( 358 S.E.2d 298) (1987). We find appellant's assertion indistinguishable from that raised in Heflin, in which we held: "The State complied with its obligations under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ake [, supra], and appellant did not make a showing that additional psychiatric study was necessary.

  8. State v. Porcher

    2011 Ohio 5976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

    Id. at *6-7. Also in 1987, the Second District decided State v. Heflin (1987), 1987 Ohio App. Lexis 6360 [(March 30, 1987), Montgomery App. No. 9716]. There the court affirmed a denial of a motion for separate trials where defendants gave different alibi defenses but did not make statements implicating the other.