Copeny v. State
316 Ga. App. 347
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendants Copeny, Ware, and Hinton were tried together and convicted of armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, and two firearm offenses.
- Victim testified four armed men robbed him; Henry identified Donnio as a planner and Donnio’s involvement was corroborated by Henry’s testimony.
- Police recovered the Monte Carlo used by the robbers and later stopped the Town Car with Copeny, Ware, Hinton, and Arnold; the victim could not definitively identify individuals but described similarities in height, weight, and attire.
- Weapons and victim’s cell phone were found on Arnold; a handgun wrapped in a mask and other clothing were found in the Town Car.
- Copeny and Ware challenged sufficiency of the evidence, with Copeny arguing improper commenting by the court and Ware arguing for merger of armed robbery into hijacking; the appellate court upheld the convictions and rejected the challenges.
- The court decided the case on sufficiency of the evidence, trial court conduct, and merger provisions as to hijacking, affirming the judgments of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Copeny | Copeny lacked knowledge and participation | Copeny did not aid or abet | Sufficient evidence; Copeny was a party to the crimes |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Ware | Ware aided but lacked advance knowledge | Henrys testimony alone insufficient | Sufficient corroboration; Ware guilty beyond reasonable doubt |
| Trial court comments on evidence | Judge impermissibly expressed opinion | Not violated under OCGA 17-8-57 | No error; comments were proper in context and did not express opinion on facts |
| Merging armed robbery with hijacking for Ware | Double punishment possible | Hijacking does not merge with armed robbery | Merger not allowed; hijacking statute precludes merger; double punishment permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. State, 269 Ga. 427 (1998) (party to a crime may be convicted if they share criminal intent)
- McWhorter v. State, 198 Ga. App. 493 (1991) (aiding and abetting to prove participation)
- Williams v. State, 236 Ga. App. 790 (1999) (presence and conduct support party liability)
- Lewis v. State, 199 Ga. App. 97 (1991) (duty of co-defendant evidence; corroboration allowed)
- Lunz v. State, 174 Ga. App. 893 (1985) (co-defendants present at scene; evidence of participation)