James Terry Estep was convicted of burglary and sentenced to serve 12 years. He brings this appeal enumerating four allegеd errors. Held:
1. In his last enumeration of error, Estep complains the evidence was insufficient to withstand a motion for directiоn of a verdict of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence. We will treat this enumeration first.
When considering the suffiсiency of the evidence to support the
*843
refusal of the direction of a verdict, this court must afford the evidence that view which is most favorable to the State for every inference is in favor of the verdict.
Taylor v. State,
A police officer returning home from duty was passing the hospital pаrking lot at the same time. He had heard over his radio a moment earlier that a burglary had occurred in the same store whiсh had been observed by the occupants of the house opposite the store. As the police officer passed the parking lot he saw a small grey automobile exit the lot and proceed in the same direction in which he was driving. The officer stopped his car and allowed the small grey car to pass. As the car passed, he saw a blond-headed man driving the vehicle and a dark-haired man in the passenger seat wearing a blue jogging suit. The officer positively identified the co-accused Williams as the driver. The officer recorded the grey car’s tag and then proceeded to the burgled storе. Thereafter, based upon information concerning the owner of the grey car (Estep’s sister), Estep and the co-aсcused (Williams) were arrested. After the arrest, the three occupants of the house were brought to the police station and identified Williams as the blond-headed person pacing up and down in front of the store and based upon his build, dark hair and the same style blue jogging suit, identified Estep as the person exiting the store through the broken plate glass window.
Our review of this evidencе satisfies us in an overwhelming manner that any rational trier of fact would have found Estep’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. The first three enumеrations of error deal with the charge of the court and more specifically with the failure to give three specific requested charges.
*844 a. Estep complains that the trial court failed to charge that mere presence of а person at the scene of a crime would not authorize a conviction without additional evidence. In regard to this charge, while it is true the trial court did not charge in the language requested, the jury was strongly directed in the charge that mere association by one with another person involved in the commission of a crime without more will not authorize a finding of guilty in the consenting in or concurring in of the commission of the crime. The jury was charged that it must find that the defendant (under the facts presented in this case) entered the store with the specific intent to burgle or aided and abetted in the commission of that act. Thus while the spеcific language requested was not in fact given to the jury, its substantial equivalent was given.
b. Estep also contends that the trial court erred in refusing a charge that evidence giving rise to a grave suspicion or which merely raises speculation or cоnjecture of defendant’s guilt is insufficient to authorize a conviction. Under the facts the jury could clearly determine that Williams wаs outside the store and that Estep was inside the store. Even assuming, arguendo, that Williams was the person inside the store, the breaking of the window and the presence of a person within the store and seen exiting, is amply sufficient to raise more than only a grаve suspicion or create speculation or conjecture.
c. Estep also ingeniously argues that the court еrred in refusing to charge on the flight of the co-accused Williams. Apparently Estep argues that he was placed at thе scene only circumstantially while the truth is that Williams together with an unidentified person committed the burglary. Thus, he contends, only the flight of Williams could give rise to the awareness of a criminal act manifested by flight. This argument has more ingenuity than merit. Williams was not before the jury nor was his guilt being determined. Thus, his flight was wholly immaterial. The flight of the defendant Estep if found by the jury was the only flight material or relevant to the jury’s сonsideration. This the trial court properly charged to the jury.
In regard to each of the three requests, we observe thаt a request to charge the jury must be legal, apt and precisely adjusted to some principle involved in the case and be authorized by the evidence.
Kessel v. State,
Judgment affirmed.