James v. State
316 Ga. App. 406
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- James appeals his convictions for armed robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a knife during a crime, and one count of attempted armed robbery.
- He argues the trial court erred by denying a directed verdict of acquittal, allowing improper hearsay, and permitting improper impeachment of a witness.
- On January 13, 2004, Turner and J.G. attempted knifepoint robberies of a Taco Bell and, minutes later, an Arby’s; James drove the getaway vehicle and waited in the car.
- J.G. testified that James drove them to the restaurants and participated in planning, with knives observed in the car and prior statements tying James to the plan.
- J.G.’s mother testified to pre- and post-crime knives and statements indicating planning and intent, supporting corroboration of J.G.’s accomplice testimony.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to corroborate J.G.’s testimony and show James’s role as getaway driver and participant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for directed verdict | James argues only accomplice testimony connected him to crimes. | James contends insufficient corroboration to support accomplice testimony. | Sufficient corroboration; jury could convict. |
| Admissibility of conspirator statements before conspiracy proved | Hearsay statements by Turner to J.G.’s mother were improper before conspiracy proved. | Statements admissible once prima facie conspiracy shown on whole evidence. | Admissible; no reversible error. |
| Impeachment using prior inconsistent statements (J.G.) | State improperly impeached without proper foundation or method. | Foundation established; prior statements to police were inconsistent and properly used. | Proper impeachment; foundation met; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Floyd v. State, 272 Ga. 65 (2000) (weight of corroboration governs accomplice testimony sufficiency)
- Mosier v. State, 223 Ga. App. 75 (1996) (impeachment and corroboration principles; prior statements)
- Thorpe v. State, 285 Ga. 604 (2009) (conspiracy and corroboration framework)
- Fallings v. State, 232 Ga. 798 (1974) (presence and conduct as circumstantial evidence of participation)
- Copeland v. State, 266 Ga. 664 (1996) (conspiracy evidence sufficiency for admissibility of statements)
- Hayward-El v. State, 284 Ga. App. 125 (2007) (indictment and discovery-related fidelity; record belies merit)