 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemons v. State2/5/2004
WHOLE COURT
Following her conviction by a jury of armed robbery, India Marie Clemons appeals, contending that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and (2) certain unsworn testimony was improperly admitted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. In two enumerations of error, Clemons argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for armed robbery.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict and determine if a rational trier of fact could find each essential element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Conflicts in witness testimony are matters of credibility for the jury to resolve. And as long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary for the state's case, the verdict will be upheld.
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Morgan v. State. See also Jackson v. Virginia.
Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that on October 3, 2001, Clemons went with Emil Hall to the apartment of Emil's brother, Aaron Hall. In Clemons's presence, Emil Hall showed his brother a handgun and talked of robbing a store so that Aaron could pay his bills. Aaron agreed to participate. At trial, Aaron testified unequivocally that Clemons participated in the conversation regarding the planning of the robbery, and that she asked during this conversation: " re you going to do [the robbery] or not." Afterwards, all three agreed to commit the robbery.
With all parties knowing that they were going to execute the plan to rob a convenience store, Clemons and the Hall brothers took I-20 west to Douglas County, stopping once for gas and a second time to allow Clemons to make a phone call. At this second stop, Clemons took over as driver. The trio exited on Post Road and drove to a convenience store. Clemons parked the car so that it was facing the road and could not be seen from the store. As Clemons sat with the engine running, Emil and Aaron Hall entered the store. Emil Hall pulled out the handgun, and the two robbed the store owner of the contents of both the cash register and a bank bag; Aaron Hall also took the wallet of a third person. The brothers then ran from the store and jumped into the waiting car, the doors of which were kept open and waiting by Clemons. With the Hall brothers in the car, Clemons sped away.
One of the victims called the police, giving a description of the car and stating that it had a temporary cardboard drive-out tag. Within minutes of the robbery, Clemons and the Halls were apprehended on I-20. The handgun used in the robbery was found in Clemons's purse, and the money taken in the robbery was found stuffed behind an armrest in the backseat. This evidence was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find Clemons guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of armed robbery.
Clemons contends that the only evidence connecting her to the armed robbery was the uncorroborated testimony of her alleged accomplice, Aaron Hall. Under OCGA ยง 24-4-8,
testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by either another witness or by corroborating circumstances. The corroboration, however, need not be sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict or prove every material element of the crime; it need only tend to connect and identify the defendant with the crime charged. . . . Circumstantial evidence, when taken with the accomplice testimony, showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient corroboration. The jury may consider the conduct of the defendant before, during and after
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Georgia Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|