Hughes v. State, 363 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Hughes v. State, 363 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 · …some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred. at p. 41 ✓
69 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Holloway v. the State (gactapp, 2017-08-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holloway v. the State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
His brief notes that his trial counsel admitted in his closing argument that Holloway committed the charged burglary, and he suggests elsewhere in the brief that only the evidence for his hijacking conviction was insufficient. 6 See Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987) (requiring evidence of “[s]ome physical manifestation of a weapon ... or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred” to support these elements of the offense) (citation and punctuation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jennings v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Miller and Ellington, JJ., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). 2 OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2). 3 OCGA § 16-6-2 (a) (2). 4 OCGA § 16-6-1 (a). 5 OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). 6 OCGA § 16-11-106 (b). 7 Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) ( 507 SE2d 514 ) (1998). 8 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 9 Prins v. State, 246 Ga. App. 585, 586 (1) ( 539 SE2d 236 ) (2000). 10 Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987). 11 Richard v. State, 287 Ga. App. 399, 400-401 (1) ( 651 SE2d 514 ) (2007). 12 Wilson v. State, 291 Ga. App. 69, 70-71 , (1) (a) ( 661 SE2d 221 )…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Prins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brabham v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
What is required is some physical manifestation of a weapon, or “some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.” (Punctuation omitted.) Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Maddox v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Howard v. State, 201 Ga. App. 164, 165 (1) ( 410 SE2d 782 ) (1991); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Terry v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
McRae v. State, 221 Ga. App. 414 ( 471 SE2d 532 ) (1996); Alford v. State, 200 Ga. App. 483 ( 408 SE2d 497 ) (1991); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradford v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
“Some physical manifestation is required or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred, Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ), but OCGA § 16-8-41 (a) does not require proof of an actual offensive weapon.” McCluskey v. State, 211 Ga. App. 205, 207 (2) ( 438 SE2d 679 ) (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
“While the presence of a weapon during the commission of a robbery may be established without proof that the weapon was actually seen, ‘ “(s)ome physical manifestation of a weapon is required, ... or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.” ’ Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987), quoting People v. Coleman, 128 Ill.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCluskey v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Some physical manifestation is required or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred, Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ), but OCGA § 16-8-41 (a) does not require proof of an actual offensive weapon.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Some physical manifestation of a weapon is required, however, or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Watkins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 403 ( 207 SE2d 30 ); compare Miles v. State, 261 Ga. 232, 234 (1b) ( 403 SE2d 794 ); Johnson v. State, 195 Ga. App. 56, 57 (1) ( 392 SE2d 280 ); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (a physical manifestation of the weapon or evidence from which its presence may be inferred, concomitant to the taking, is required); Studdard v. State, 185 Ga. App. 319, 320 (2) ( 363 SE2d 837 ) (whole court).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shellman v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Some physical manifestation of a weapon is required, however, or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.’ [Cit.]” Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alford v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
When the Code speaks of force, it means actual violence; and when it speaks of intimidation, it still means force; not actual and direct, but exerted upon the person robbed, by operating upon his fears — the fear of injury to his person, or property, or character.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanders v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Tate v. State, 191 Ga. App. 727 (2) ( 382 SE2d 688 ) (1989); Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Some physical manifestation of a weapon is required, however, or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.’ . . . [Cit.]” Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alford v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
We find the victim’s testimony that he was struck with a blunt metal object that he thought was a gun, combined with the evidence of the severity of his injuries and the likely cause of such injuries, constituted circumstantial evidence of “ ‘[s]ome physical manifestation of a weapon ... or some *484 evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.’ . . . [Cit.]” Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gatlin v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987), held the Code section “to encompass armed robbers who have concealed offensive weapons in their pockets or under wraps or other devices.” It added the caveat that “[s]ome physical manifestation of a weapon is required, however, or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.” Initially defendant snatched the money, and his weapon was not used to obtain it.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Talbot v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
We have held that “ ‘the weapon does not have to be visible as far as being in the hand of or shown to the victim by the accused,’ ” so that use of concealed offensive weapons “or other devices,” may constitute armed robbery (Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 )), but the evidence must at least show that there was an offensive weapon or an article having the appearance of one.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tate v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
While the presence of a weapon during the commission of a robbery may be established without proof that the weapon was actually seen, “ ‘[s]ome physical manifestation of a weapon is required, ... or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.’ ” Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40, 41 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987), quoting People v. Coleman, 128 Ill.
examined Cited "see" Walton v. State (4×)
Del. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hughes v. State, 185 Ga.App. 40 , 363 S.E.2d 336, 337 (1987) (requiring "Some physical manifestation of a weapon” to sustain a first degree robbery conviction) (quotation omitted); People v. Parker, 417 Mich. 556 , 339 N.W.2d 455, 459 (1983) (reasoning that the fact finder must determine that the defendant was “armed” with an article that leads the victim to believe the defendant possessed a deadly weapon); State v. Fortune, 608 So.2d 148, 149 (La.1992) (stating that the first degree robbery statute "requires the state to prove that the offender induced a subjective belief in the vic…
discussed Cited "see" Culver v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Hughes v. State, 185 Ga. App. 40 ( 363 SE2d 336 ) (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hughes
v.
the State
75312.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 20, 1987.
363 S.E.2d 336
1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2444
B. J. Smith, for appellant., Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Nelly F. Withers, Barbara Conroy, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Pope, Birdsong, Been.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Pope, Judge.

Jeffrey Scott Hughes brings this appeal from his conviction and sentence of armed robbery and possession of cocaine. Held:

At the request of the jury, the trial court recharged them as to the crimes of robbery and of armed robbery as defined by the Code, OCGA §§ 16-8-40 (a) and 16-8-41 (a). A juror then inquired: “Does the handgun have to actually be in view and pointed at the victim?” After some discussion with the juror and with counsel, the trial court determined that the point of inquiry was whether the weapon had to be visible in order for the alleged conduct to be armed robbery as opposed to robbery by intimidation. The trial court charged “that the weapon does not have to be visible as far as being in the hand of or shown to the victim by the accused” in order to convict him of armed robbery. Defendant’s sole enumeration of error challenges the correctness of this charge.

“OCGA § 16-8-41 (a) provides, in relevant part, that ‘(a) person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.’ ‘This section clearly contemplates that the offensive weapon be used as a concomitant to a taking which involves the use of actual force or intimidation (constructive force) against another person.’ Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 403 (207 SE2d 30) (1974). . . . [U]nder OCGA § 16-8-41 an[*41] armed robbery is committed if the weapon has been used as an instrument of constructive, as well as actual, force. [Cits.] ‘When the Code speaks of force, it means actual violence; and when it speaks of intimidation, it still means force; not actual and direct, but exerted upon the person robbed, by operating upon his fears — the fear of injury to his person, or property, or character.’ [Cit.]” (Indention omitted.) Maddox v. State, 174 Ga. App. 728, 729-730 (330 SE2d 911) (1985); Cook v. State, 179 Ga. App. 610 (1) (347 SE2d 664) (1986); Doby v. State, 173 Ga. App. 348 (1) (326 SE2d 506) (1985). It is thus apparent that the legislature intended OCGA § 16-8-41 to encompass armed robbers who have concealed offensive weapons in their pockets or under wraps or other devices.

Decided November 20, 1987. B. J. Smith, for appellant. Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Nelly F. Withers, Barbara Conroy, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

In light of the foregoing principles, we find persuasive the holding of the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District in People v. Coleman, 128 Ill.App.3d 538 (2) (470 NE2d 1277) (1984): “The presence of a weapon during commission of a robbery, necessary to a conviction for armed robbery, may be established by circumstantial evidence, and a conviction for armed robbery may be sustained even though the weapon itself was neither seen nor accurately described by the victim. Some physical manifestation of a weapon is required, however, or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be inferred.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 545. It follows that the cited charge was correct and accurate as an abstract statement of the law and thus provides no basis for reversal in this case. See Builders Homes of Ga. v. Wallace Pump &c. Co., 128 Ga. App. 779 (5) (197 SE2d 839) (1973); see also Wilcher v. State, 230 Ga. 294 (5) (196 SE2d 864) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, C. J., and Been, P. J., concur.