Rogers v. State

33 Citing cases

  1. Garrett v. State

    288 S.E.2d 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    Only the "residue" of this identification tag remained on the set. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976). Compare Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118 (2) ( 240 S.E.2d 319) (1977).

  2. Power v. State

    260 Ga. 101 (Ga. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    Under OCGA § 16-9-70, knowledge that the identification mark has been removed for purposes of concealing the identity of the article is an essential element of the crime, Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118 ( 240 S.E.2d 319) (1977), which may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976). However, the evidence here is only that the defendant was aware the serial number had been removed; there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that he knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of the rifle.

  3. Brooks v. State

    235 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. 1977)

    We reject this contention and the case will be transferred to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the appeal. See Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976), where the Court of Appeals construed and applied Code Ann. § 26-1506. Transferred to the Court of Appeals, Nichols, C. J., Undercofler, P. J., Jordan, Ingram, Hall and Hill, JJ., concur.

  4. Thurman v. State

    249 Ga. App. 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70 (a), criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark, requires knowledge and intent as essential elements of the offense. See Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101 ( 390 S.E.2d 47) (1990); Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118 ( 240 S.E.2d 319) (1977); Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976). The defendant and his co-defendants were arrested in possession of seven weapons, the serial numbers on each having been removed, immediately after confronting their victims.

  5. Fulton v. State

    232 Ga. App. 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times

    OCGA § 16-9-70 (a), criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark, requires knowledge and intent as essential elements of the offense: "which he knows the . . . serial number . . . has been removed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of such article." See Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101 ( 390 S.E.2d 47) (1990); Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118 ( 240 S.E.2d 319) (1977); Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976). The testimony of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms ("ATF") Agent Randy Beach gave rise to circumstantial evidence of possession of the pistol, but not of knowledge of the altered serial number on the pistol.

  6. Ware v. State

    400 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 6 times

    In applying the relevant standard, "[t]o sustain the judgment of conviction, the evidence need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except guilt of the accused, but only reasonable inferences or hypotheses, so as to justify the inference, beyond reasonable doubt, of guilt. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 659 ( 229 S.E.2d 132). Questions as to reasonableness generally are to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, the appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilt is unsupportable as a matter of law. [Cits.]" Pratt v. State, 180 Ga. App. 389, 390 ( 348 S.E.2d 922) (1986). "

  7. Phillips v. State

    363 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    In Phillips, the defendant's vehicle was found parked on a road with its engine running and the lights on. The defendant was slumped over the steering wheel, passed out, and intoxicated. It was held that the evidence authorized a finding that he had driven the automobile while intoxicated.

    The jury itself decides whether every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt of the defendant has been excluded. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 659 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976)." Lewis v. State, 149 Ga. App. 181 (1), 182 ( 254 S.E.2d 142).

  8. Pratt v. State

    348 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    To sustain the judgment of conviction, the evidence need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except guilt of the accused, but only reasonable inferences or hypotheses, so as to justify the inference, beyond reasonable doubt, of guilt. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 659 ( 229 S.E.2d 132). Questions as to reasonableness generally are to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, the appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilt is unsupportable as a matter of law. Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 245 ( 223 S.E.2d 643); Pless v. State, 142 Ga. App. 594 ( 236 S.E.2d 842).

  9. Schmalz v. State

    177 Ga. App. 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 245 ( 223 S.E.2d 643); Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 766, 767 ( 225 S.E.2d 263). Whether every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt of the defendant has been excluded itself is a question for the jury where the jury is properly instructed. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 659 ( 229 S.E.2d 132). Under the facts of this case, the evidence points inexorably toward Keith Schmalz and him only.

  10. Cauthen v. State

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

    Whether every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt of the defendant has been properly excluded is a question for the jury. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 659 ( 229 S.E.2d 132) (1976); Henderson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 302, 304 ( 326 S.E.2d 246) (1985). We see no reason to disturb their finding.