Appellants Bryan and Clay were jointly indicted on three counts of burglary and tried jointly before a jury in separate trials for each count. (Appellant Clay’s brother was also indicted on one of these counts, to which he pleaded guilty.) Both appellants were found guilty of each of the three counts. They now appeal from the judgment, enumerating similar errors regarding the court’s refusal to suppress items seized from Bryan’s property and from Clay’s car, the overruling of motions for directed verdict as to one of the counts, the correctness of jury instruction, and the overruling of objections to allegedly improper remarks of the district attorney. Held:
1. The overruling of appellants’ motions to suppress raises several questions for determination.
(A) Did the warrant describe with sufficient particularity the object of the search? The warrant was directed at the premises of appellant Bryan, "located at 11th residence on right going North on Bogger Bottoms Road off Ga. 85. Cream colored mobile home with brown trim and wood front porch.” We conclude that the premises were described "with such particularity as to enable a prudent officer executing the warrant to locate the person and place definitely and with reasonable certainty, without depending upon his discretion.”
Jones v. State,
(B) Did probable cause exist for the issuance of the warrant? The affidavit’s recitation that the informer has given information in the past and that this information has led to arrests and convictions satisfies the required showing as to the informer’s reliability.
Sams v. State,
(C) Did the officers, in executing the warrant, impermissibly seize items from areas beyond the scope of the warrant? "[A] search warrant for the home of a named individual at a particular location includes authority to search the curtilage. [Cits.]”
Moon v. State,
(D) Did the officers have authority to seize items from Clay’s automobile, which was parked on Bryan’s property? Since the trunk of this vehicle was open and various items were in the officer’s plain view, we answer this question affirmatively. It has many times been recognized that officers are not required to ignore that which is in plain view and readily observable.
Scott v. State,
*171 2. Appellants enumerate error on the overruling of their motions for directed verdict with respect to their convictions arising out of the burglary of a storage shed owned by Irene Pratt (Case No. 793, Page 133, Count II). Allen Pratt testified that his mother’s shed had been broken into and that several tools and a chain saw had been stolen. Sheriff Branch stated that Pratt’s chain saw was found at Bryan’s residence in his barbecue pit. This was the only item recovered from the theft. Clay’s brother pleaded guilty to this burglary and, in a statement given to Sheriff Branch, he said that Bryan had participated in the burglary, but that he was not sure whether appellant Clay was also present. Clay’s brother also testified at trial, stating that Bryan was passed out from intoxication in his car during the burglary and that Clay was not with them. Clay denied participation in the burglary and Bryan testified that he was too drunk to remember what he did that day.
Where, in a criminal case, there is no conflict in the evidence, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, shall demand a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law, it is incumbent upon the trial judge to grant a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and his failure to do so constitutes reversible error.
Merino v. State,
(A) As to appellant Clay, we think it clear that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The only item recovered from the burglary was the chain saw found at Bryan’s residence and in Bryan’s sole possession. While Clay’s car was parked on Bryan’s property and was filled with other stolen items, Clay was not shown to have possessed any of the fruits of the Pratt burglary. The only evidence linking Clay to this burglary was the statement of his brother, who pleaded guilty to the offense, that he was "unsure” as to whether Clay was with him during his commission of the crime. This statement does not constitute even a shred of evidence and, without more, raises no issue as to Clay’s guilt. The trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal for appellant Clay on this count.
(B) The state’s case against Bryan rests on more
*172
solid ground. His possession of the stolen chain saw together with the evidence of his presence at the scene of the crime was sufficient to authorize the conviction. "Where stolen goods are found in the possession of the defendant charged with burglary, recently after the commission of the offense, that fact would authorize the jury to infer that the accused was guilty, unless he explained his possession to their satisfaction.”
Mathews v. State,
3. Appellants enumerate several errors upon that portion of the jury charge concerning recent possession of stolen goods. It is contended that the charge is an erroneous statement of the law and that it is burden-shifting. However, the instruction given is substantially the same as the charges approved in
Sanford v. State,
4. Clay’s brother-in-law testified as a defense witness. On direct examination, and in response to defense counsel’s questioning, he stated that Sheriff Branch "picked me up twice and tried to charge me for burglary and stuff like that and I told him I didn’t know anything about it.” The witness also testified that he was told he would be charged with burglary, but that he was never so charged. The witness’s statement asserted blameless conduct on his part and wrongful accusation by Sheriff Branch. In fact, however, the witness had been *173 indicted for theft by taking in relation to this same occurrence. The district attorney’s question concerning the fact of this indictment was not an improper area of cross examination in light of the erroneous impression created by the witness’s earlier testimony. As defense counsel had opened the door to this line of inquiry, the trial judge correctly overruled the objection to the district attorney’s question.
5. Two enumerations contend that the district attorney, in his closing argument, confused the jury by stating erroneous legal principles. In both instances, the trial judge, while overruling appellants’ timely objection, informed the jury that he alone was to instruct them as to the law. In view of this cautionary statement and the correct jury instructions which followed, we cannot agree with the appellants’ claim of prejudice. As appellants have failed to demonstrate harm, we can discern no cause for the grant of a new trial on this ground.
6. In his closing argument, the district attorney stated, "If I were sitting on the jury, I’d say, How dare them insult my intelligence with a cock-and-bull-trashy story.” Appellants contend that the statement constitutes an expression of personal opinion as to the defendants’ guilt, as opposed to an argument based upon the evidence, and that the trial judge erred in overruling the objection to this remark.
"Counsel 'is never justified in expressing the opinion ... that one whom he is pursuing is guilty. Such opinion is not legal evidence, and in no circumstances, and at no step of the proceedings, is he entitled to thrust it into the case ...’ [Cit.]
’’Broznack v. State,
By prefacing his remafk with the words, "If I were sitting on the jury,” the district attorney made obvious reference to the jury’s role as finders of fact and to their duty to weigh the evidence. His characterization of appellants’ explanation of their possession may have been expressed caustically, but the remark was addressed to the improbability of appellants’ assertions in light of other evidence. The district attorney’s statement was within the bounds of permissible argument.
7. Appellants’ remaining enumerations concern allegedly improper remarks by the district attorney in his closing argument. Having carefully reviewed each of these statements, we conclude that the remarks were not improper for any of the reasons urged. A district attorney "may argue to the jury the necessity for enforcement of the law and may impress on the jury, with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration, its responsibility in this regard.”
Terhune v. State,
8. For the reasons set out in Division 2, the conviction of appellant Clay in Superior Court Case No. 793, Page 133, Count II is reversed. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed in Case No. 51292; judgment *175 affirmed, in part and reversed in part in Case No. 51293.