From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wade v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 22, 1982
290 S.E.2d 535 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

63887.

DECIDED APRIL 22, 1982.

Armed robbery. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Williams.

Charles E. Floyd, Jr., for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Margaret V. Lines, Wallace Speed, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.


The defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of armed robbery, contending that the evidence was insufficient. The victims, Mr. and Mrs. Peacock, testified that they met the defendant and his companion in a bar and offered the two men a ride upon leaving. They stated that once in the victims' car, the defendant put a gun to Mr. Peacock's side and demanded the couple's money, or he "would blow his brains out." Mrs. Peacock gave up her pocketbook, and Mr. Peacock gave up his wallet.

The defendant admitted encountering the Peacocks at the bar and accepting a ride with them, but he denied robbing them. He also testified that he was with a companion named Donnie, stating that he did not know Donnie's last name or where he could be located. Held:

The credibility of the witnesses is a matter for jury determination. Redd v. State, 154 Ga. App. 373 ( 268 S.E.2d 423) (1979). We have carefully reviewed the evidence and find that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown v. State, 152 Ga. App. 144 ( 262 S.E.2d 510) (1979).

Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 22, 1982.


Summaries of

Wade v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 22, 1982
290 S.E.2d 535 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Wade v. State

Case Details

Full title:WADE v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 22, 1982

Citations

290 S.E.2d 535 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
290 S.E.2d 535

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

Issues regarding the credibility of witnesses are in the sole province of the jury. Wade v. State, 162 Ga.…

Mann v. State

Thus, we find the evidence more than sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found appellant guilty…