Tate v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Gonzalez v. State

    306 Ga. App. 887 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    What is required is some physical manifestation of a weapon or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred." ) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Forde v. State, 277 Ga.App. 410, 412(1), 626 S.E.2d 606 (2006) (accord); Marlin v. State, 273 Ga.App. 856, 858-859(2), 616 S.E.2d 176 (2005) (accord); Martin v. State, 264 Ga.App. 813, 814, 592 S.E.2d 483 (2003) (accord); Smith v. State, 209 Ga.App. 540, 541, 433 S.E.2d 694 (1993) (accord); but cf. Tate v. State, 191 Ga.App. 727, 728(2), 382 S.E.2d 688 (1989) (Evidence that the defendant approached the victim with his hand in his jacket pocket was insufficient evidence from which the jury could infer the presence of a weapon because there was no evidence that the defendant's hand was in a position that it looked like a pistol, that it appeared that the defendant had anything in his pocket besides his hand, or that the defendant said anything to suggest he was holding a weapon. Therefore, the evidence did not support a conviction for criminal attempt to commit an armed robbery.).

  2. Sorrells v. State

    630 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)

    And although Sorrells presented evidence that he was at work until 10:00 p.m. on the night of the robberies, the work supervisor who testified on his behalf admitted that he had not seen Sorrells that night. Under these circumstances, the jury was authorized to reject Sorrells' alibi defense, resolve the conflicts in the evidence against him, and find him guilty of the armed robberies of Walton and Addison. See id. at 303-304 (3) (b); Gould v. State, 239 Ga. App. 312, 313 (1) ( 521 SE2d 365) (1999); Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727 (1) ( 382 SE2d 688) (1989). 2.

  3. Forde v. State

    626 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Determining that the evidence was sufficient to sustain armed robbery conviction, where the defendant told the store employee that he had a gun and would blow her head off if she did not give him money, and the store employee saw a bulge in the defendant's clothing where the gun was allegedly hidden and believed that the defendant had a gun

    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307. Compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727, 728 (2) ( 382 SE2d 688) (1989) (evidence that defendant approached victim with his hand in his pocket, without more, was insufficient upon which to infer the presence of a weapon). 2.

  4. Jenkins v. State

    259 Ga. App. 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    See Shirley v. State, 245 Ga. 616, 618(1) ( 266 S.E.2d 218) (1980) (prosecutor can argue to jury inferences to be drawn from defendant's failure to produce allegedly favorable evidence, although comment on defendant's failure to testify is prohibited). See generally Grier v. State, 209 Ga. App. 283, 284(1) ( 433 S.E.2d 685) (1993); compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727, 728(3) ( 382 S.E.2d 688) (1989) (where trial court failed to instruct jury to disregard prosecuting attorney's reference to prejudicial matters not in evidence). PHIPPS, Judge.

  5. Espinoza v. State

    243 Ga. App. 665 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 7 times

    The evidence was thus sufficient to support the verdict. See McCluskey v. State, 211 Ga. App. 205, 206 (2) ( 438 S.E.2d 679) (1993); compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727 (2) ( 382 S.E.2d 688) (1989). 2.

  6. Miller v. State

    228 Ga. App. 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 10 times

    However, because the State's remarks were not directed at Miller's character and were highly unlikely to prejudice his right to a fair trial, reversal is unwarranted. Id.; compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727, 728 (3) ( 382 S.E.2d 688) (1989) (reversing due to the State's repeated references during closing to defendant's drug use in trial unrelated to drugs with no evidence of drug use). 5.

  7. Mangum v. State

    492 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    The proprietor testified that she thought Mangum was armed. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports the conclusion that the proprietor's apprehension that Mangum was armed was reasonable. McCluskey v. State, 211 Ga. App. 205, 207-208 (2) ( 438 S.E.2d 679) (1993); compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727, 728 (2) ( 382 S.E.2d 688) (1989). The inference of a weapon's presence was not error.Johnson v. State, 195 Ga. App. 56, 57 (1) (a) ( 392 S.E.2d 280) (1990).

  8. Smith v. State

    452 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    "' Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 S.E.2d 336) (1987), quoting People v. Coleman, 128 Ill. App.3d 538 (2) ( 470 N.E.2d 1277) (1984)." Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727, 728 (2) ( 382 S.E.2d 688). In the case sub judice, defendant's statement that he had a gun, the accompanying threats, the victim's testimony that the object in defendant's shirt looked like a handgun, and the victim's testimony as to his apprehension that he might be killed, amounted to sufficient evidence that he felt a reasonable apprehension that an offensive weapon was being used by defendant.

  9. McCluskey v. State

    211 Ga. App. 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 22 times

    McCluskey contends that under ยง 16-8-41, to constitute the offense of armed robbery "the evidence must at least show that there was an offensive weapon or an article having the appearance of one." Talbot v. State, 198 Ga. App. 636, 638 ( 402 S.E.2d 366), and see Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727 ( 382 S.E.2d 688). McCluskey contends he could not be convicted for armed robbery because he had no gun or bomb and never indicated he had a gun or bomb; the first teller did not testify he said he had a gun or bomb nor did he display anything having the appearance of a gun or bomb; and the teller testified that she thought the bag he placed on the counter contained coins. These contentions misconstrue the evidence.

  10. Sumlin v. State

    207 Ga. App. 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    See Moody v. State, 258 Ga. 818, 819 (1) ( 375 S.E.2d 30) (1989); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40 ( 363 S.E.2d 336) (1987). Compare Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727 (2) ( 382 S.E.2d 688) (1989). However, the victim's same testimony also authorized a finding of robbery by intimidation.