Veasey v. State
322 Ga. App. 591
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Veasey was convicted in two indictments: A13A0134 for two counts of armed robbery, five counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during a felony; sentences were concurrent fifteen-year terms and five years probation on firearm count.
- In Case No. A13A0135, Veasey was convicted of robbery and received a 15-year sentence concurrent to A13A0134.
- Appellate review proceeded under Jackson v. Virginia, requiring viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assessing sufficiency, not credibility.
- May 5, 2005: owner of a Chinese restaurant and his family were robbed; assailants with a gun took wallets and the owner’s gun.
- August 10, 2005: a cashier was robbed; pursuit by police followed a car in which Veasey was later identified in a photographic lineup; items from the robbery were recovered.
- The court affirmed the judgments, finding the evidence sufficient to sustain all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for armed robbery of restaurant owner | Veasey argues insufficient evidence since owner testified a gun was already used by a co-actor | State contends owner’s testimony alone supports armed robbery | Sufficient evidence to sustain the armed robbery conviction |
| Sufficiency for armed robbery of the employee | Insufficient to prove the named employee was robbed | Indictment identified the employee; property taken from owner’s group supports conviction | Sufficient evidence to sustain armed robbery of the employee named in the indictment |
| Sufficiency for aggravated assaults against wife and three children | Assistant argues lack of direct identification and causation | Presence of gun and victims’ fear supports aggravated assault convictions | Sufficient evidence to sustain four aggravated assault convictions |
| Sufficiency for August armed robbery of cashier | Indictment identity of victim is essential | Robbery is a crime against possession; exact victim identity not essential | Sufficient evidence to sustain armed robbery of the cashier |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 314 Ga. App. 806 (2012) (sufficiency standard; identity not required to be proven by direct evidence (possession-based robbery))
- Ward v. State, 304 Ga. App. 517 (2010) (indictment sufficiency; specificity of allegation matters but not essential to conviction if elements proven)
- McKisic v. State, 238 Ga. 644 (1977) (police testimony naming victim can satisfy indictment identity)
- Farris v. State, 290 Ga. 323 (2012) (credibility and conflicts for jury; single witness can establish a fact under OCGA 24-4-8)
- Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704 (2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)