Smith v. State, 185 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. State, 185 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mallory v. State (gactapp, 1983-06-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mallory v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
In Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525, 527 ( 198 SE2d 179 ), the Supreme Court held robbery by intimidation was a lesser included offense of armed robbery and held it would not be error to fail to charge on robbery by intimidation if the evidence did not “demand” a charge on that offense, citing Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ward v. State
Ga. · 1973 · confidence medium
In that case this court followed the case of Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ) where it was held that since the evidence did not demand a charge on the lesser included offense, a failure to charge on it was not error.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tenney v. State
Ga. · 1973 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ); Hill v. State, 229 Ga. 307 ( 191 SE2d 58 ); Watson v. State, 229 Ga. 573 ( 192 SE2d 897 ) and cits.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. State
Ga. · 1972 · confidence medium
See also Daniels v. State, 219 Ga. 381 ( 133 SE2d 357 ); Hart v. State, 227 Ga. 171 (4) ( 179 SE2d 346 ); Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
See, for example, Moore v. State, 151 Ga. 648 (5) ( 108 SE 47 ); Lewis v. State, 156 Ga. 862 (1) ( 120 SE 124 ); Gorman v. State, 183 Ga. 307, 309 ( 188 SE 455 ); Bowen v. State, 188 Ga. 28 (1) ( 2 SE2d 637 ); Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ); Hill v. State, 229 Ga. 307 ( 191 SE2d 58 ); Johnson *101 v. State, 75 Ga. App. 581 (2) ( 44 SE2d 149 ); Buttram v. State, 121 Ga. App. 186 (4) ( 173 SE2d 272 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Craighead v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ).
discussed Cited "see" Hambrick v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ) (1971); Craighead v. State, 126 Ga. App. 300, 302 ( 190 SE2d 606 ) (1972); Jordan v. State, 239 Ga. 526 ( 238 SE2d 69 ) (1977); Mallory v. State, 166 Ga. App. 812, 814 ( 305 SE2d 656 ) (1983).
examined Cited "see" Lemon v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 (1) ( 185 SE2d 381 ); Holcomb v. State, 230 Ga. 525 ( 198 SE2d 179 ); Deese v. State, 137 Ga. App. 476, 477 (3) ( 224 SE2d 124 ); Tuggle v. State, 149 Ga. App. 844, 845 (6) ( 256 SE2d 104 ); Dennis v. State, 158 Ga. App. 142, 144 (6) ( 279 SE2d 275 ).
discussed Cited "see" Holcomb v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 228 Ga. 293, 294 ( 185 SE2d 381 ).
Smith
v.
the State
26765.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Nov 5, 1971.
185 S.E.2d 381
Edwin M. Saginar, for appellant., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joel M. Feldman, Carter Goode, Creighton W. Sossomon, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, William F. Bar-tee, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Almand.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
Almand, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a jury verdict finding the appellant guilty of the offenses of (a) armed robbery, (b) possessing a pistol without a license, and (c) carrying a concealed weapon, and from an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Grounds 1 and 2 of the enumeration of errors assert that the court erred in failing to charge the law relating to attempt to commit a criminal act, and abandonment of effort to commit a crime, as provided in Chapter 26-10 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249).

With respect to the armed robbery charge, the evidence shows the completion, not an attempt, of armed robbery. It was not error therefore to fail to charge the law relating to attempts. Haney v. State, 64 Ga. App. 396, 400 (13 SE2d 384).

There was no evidence to require a charge as to the abandonment of an effort to commit a crime.

Grounds of error Nos. 3, 4 and 5 allege that the court erred in (a) failing to charge the jury on theft as an essential element of the crime of armed robbery, as provided by §26-1902 of the Criminal Code, (b) failing to charge the jury on intent as an essential element of the offense of armed robbery, and (c) failing to charge on the lesser offense being included in the greater offense.

The court gave in charge Criminal Code § 26-1902 which defines "Armed robbery.” The evidence did not demand a charge on the lesser degrees of a crime.

[*295] After the jury had returned their verdict of guilty evidence of several prior felony convictions of the defendant was introduced. The jury was instructed by the court to retire and fix the sentence of the defendant.

Grounds of error 6 to 10 inclusive assert that after the jury had deliberated for 37 minutes and had not reached an agreement on the sentence, the court withdrew the case from the consideration of the jury and imposed the sentence.

It is claimed that (a) the court erred in not allowing the jury a reasonable time to deliberate, (b) denying the defendant due process, and (c) depriving the defendant of his right to be sentenced by the jury.

The Act approved March 27, 1970 (Ga. L. 1970, pp. 949-951) providing for pre-sentence hearings in felony cases declares: "If the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, agree on the punishment, the judge shall impose sentence within the limits of the law.”

We cannot say that the court acted unreasonably in taking the issue of sentence from the jury and fixing the sentence.

It was not error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.