Sweat v. State

23 Citing cases

  1. O'Neal v. State

    239 Ga. 532 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 19 times

    He urges that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to show participation in the crime and hence mere presence is not sufficient to show a conspiracy with the active participant. Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 ( 168 S.E.2d 654) (1969).

  2. Rhodes v. State

    236 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 8 times

    She contends that the only evidence connecting her with the commission of the crime was that she was with the defendants Rhodes and Murray when the armed robbery took place. Citing Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 ( 168 S.E.2d 654), the appellant contends that her mere presence when the crime was committed, without more does not support a conviction of armed robbery. From a thorough reading of the transcript the evidence clearly connects the appellant with the robbery, her act being more than a mere presence at the scene of the crime.

  3. Ferguson v. State

    307 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that evidence in video surveillance footage showing person taking victimโ€™s car was sufficient to support identification of defendant as thief and, thus, his conviction for theft by taking motor vehicle

    Mere presence of one where a crime is committed, without more, will not support a conviction. Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 ( 168 SE2d 654) (1969). So too, unexplained and suspicious circumstances are not sufficient to convict the defendant.

  4. Johnson v. State

    538 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 9 times

    The State must provide evidence of a connection linking the defendant to the contraband other than his mere spatial proximity.Carthern v. State defined that connection as follows: Reese v. State, 157 Ga. 766 ( 122 S.E. 195) (1924); Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 654) (1969).Francis v. State, 231 Ga. App. 112, 113 (1) ( 497 S.E.2d 827) (1998).

  5. Sinkfield v. State

    201 Ga. App. 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    7. In his seventh enumeration, defendant contends the evidence did not support the trial court's charge on voluntary intoxication and cites Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646, 647 (2) ( 168 S.E.2d 654), wherein it was held that a charge on drunkenness was error because there was insufficient evidence to authorize a finding that defendant committed the crime charged. The case sub judice is distinguishable from Sweat v. State, supra, in that there is sufficient evidence to authorize a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was a party to the aggravated assault of Hymond Wimbush and there is evidence that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime.

  6. Burley v. State

    321 S.E.2d 783 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 12 times

    3. a. Appellant contends error in denial of his request to charge that mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to support a conviction. See Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 654) (1969). Such a charge was not warranted by the evidence.

  7. Manbeck v. State

    302 S.E.2d 361 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 7 times

    [Cits.]'" Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 ( 168 S.E.2d 654) (1969). In the instant case, there was ample evidence to show appellant's participation in the crime.

  8. Solomon v. State

    288 S.E.2d 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that defendant's "timely presence at the scene of the crime and the circumstances of his discovery there [provided] sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony"

    Police officers discovered appellant crouched behind one of the school's air conditioning units. Contrary to appellant's assertion, this is not a case where appellant was convicted solely on evidence of his presence at the scene of a crime (compare Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 ( 168 S.E.2d 654)), since another suspect, captured as he fled the school building, testified for the state at appellant's trial and identified appellant as a member of the quartet which broke into the school building. Under Code Ann. ยง 38-121, the testimony of one witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact except in a felony case where the witness is an accomplice.

  9. Smith v. State

    267 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 9 times

    A. Specifically, appellant-Hearing complains that the evidence adduced at trial, showing no more than his mere presence at the scene of the crime (a "Seven-Eleven" store) shortly before the robbery occurred, did not support, as a matter of law, a finding of guilty. See in this regard Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 654). We must take issue with appellant's interpretation and summation of the evidence.

  10. Simmons v. State

    254 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    ]" Jones v. State, 64 Ga. App. 308 ( 13 S.E.2d 91) (1941). See also Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 654) (1969). While the evidence was amply sufficient to convict Glenn Simmons, the defense motion for directed verdict was meritorious and should have been granted as to Burch Simmons.