158 Ga. App. 296 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1981
Defendant was indicted and convicted of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a pistol, knowingly committed upon a police officer while such officer was engaged in the performance of his official duties. Defendant appeals, enumerating as error the sufficiency of the evidence. Held:
The state’s evidence shows that the defendant was residing temporarily as a guest in the home of his sister and her husband until he got a job and found a place to live. One of the conditions of this arrangement was an agreement between the defendant and his host that he would not drink alcoholic beverages. After he had been living with his sister and brother-in-law for about 3 weeks he began drinking and was asked to leave. Defendant’s brother-in-law urged him to leave, and about 11:00 p.m. told defendant that he must leave by midnight. When defendant indicated that he would take a walk to clear his head he left but did not return; so that when the brother-in-law heard shots fired 10 or 15 minutes later he became concerned that the defendant had committed suicide. After waiting about 30 more minutes the brother-in-law called the sheriffs department which dispatched a deputy. The deputy, who was armed and in uniform with badge and name plate thereon, went to the residence and looked but did not find the defendant. The deputy, on being told that the brother-in-law was going to be away from the home for a time, instructed him to turn off all the lights and lock the doors of the home before he left. The deputy promised to keep an eye on the house during the night. About 12:30 or 12:45 a.m., the deputy drove by the house and noticing a light on radioed his dispatcher to telephone a number at which the brother-in-law had indicated he could be reached and to ask him to return to the house to aid in determining who had entered the house. As there were circumstances suggesting that defendant had a weapon, a trooper with the Georgia State Patrol was called as a backup unit by the sheriffs department’s dispatcher. The brother-in-law, state trooper, and the deputy met outside the home and entered together. Both the deputy sheriff and the state trooper were in uniform and under arms. The three advanced through the house calling out the defendant’s name and calling for him to come out and talk. The three progressed to the bedroom in which the defendant had been staying. The light was on when they entered the room. They looked under the bed and started back out. At that time the deputy noticed a closet door behind the entrance door to the room. The state trooper and defendant’s brother-in-law had already stepped out into the hallway when the
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is completed when a simple assault is committed by means of a deadly weapon. Scott v. State, 141 Ga. App. 848, 849 (1) (234 SE2d 685).
“A person commits simple assault when he either (a) attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another or (b) commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.” Code Ann. § 26-1301 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1280).
Defendant’s action and the reactions of the deputy meet all the requirements for an aggravated assault; after a “tussle” with the deputy, the defendant bent over the deputy who was on the floor, pointed a loaded pistol into the deputy’s face and stated to him, “This is it.” The deputy testified that at that time he was in fear of being shot. See in this regard Leach v. State, 143 Ga. App. 598, 599-600 (239 SE2d 177). Although the defendant laid down his weapon without violence, the events preceding defendant’s surrender as shown by the state’s evidence authorized the jury to conclude that the aggravated assault occurred upon the deputy prior to the surrender.
Code Ann. § 26-1302 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1280; 1976, p. 543) provides for a more extensive sentence to be imposed for a conviction of the offense of aggravated assault upon a peace officer. Normally the offense of aggravated assault carries a sentence of not less than 1 nor more than 10 years. However, where a person knowingly commits
After a careful review of the entire record and transcript we find that a rational trier of fact (the jury in the case sub judice) could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160, 161 (1) (259 SE2d 133); Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 (1) (263 SE2d 916); Sanders v. State, 246 Ga. 42 (1) (268 SE2d 628); Jones v. State, 154 Ga. App. 806, 807 (1) (270 SE2d 201).
Judgment affirmed.