*1 Lindsay, Wendell C. for appellees. HALL THE
50893. STATE. Judge.
Evans, Defendant was tried with two for the crime others armed robbery. The defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to nine years. serve He appeals. Held: mаles, haircut, one tall with an afro the other (both black), masks over their stocking faces entered a seafood establishment armed with a shotgun and a pistol about 8:30 at р.m. made the night. They floor, lie on occupants and proceeded to rob the business and the employees of valuables. Another black male was observed in an аutomobile when the two males ran to it to make their escape. This was reported police almost immediately when the observer of this was told of the activity robbеry seafood establishment. He also gave license number to the police, traced; and the police immediately went to the home of Oscar Bethey, as his wife оwned the car. The automobile was observed at his home and on request, given to search permission the car and the home. There were three black males dwelling, A inсluding defendant. sum of money was found under a mattress and a wrapping stockings found in the car.
2. The strongest against the defendant Hall is that his own admitted being with the other two defendants eаrlier in the afternoon 2at (and o’clock and again at o’clock later), perhaps little and drinking vodka with them. When the robbery occurred at around 8 to 8:30 p.m., Bethey and Austin were positively identified as those actively participating therein, (unidentified) while another black person sitting outside the car which they used as the "get-away” car. It trаced to the home of where Bethey Bethey, Austin and home, Hall all Bethey’s inside and no other male person was there.
This was circumstantial evidence which raised an infеrence that defendant Hall was one in the robbery, by sitting outside in the car as a look-out on. robbery going while Defendant before the other robbers crime was committed and found with them immediate- *2 after at the home of one of The ly them. evidence was sufficient to determination that he to crime. State, Court v. Supreme in Merino Georgia, (198 604, 311),
230 Ga. аt 606 SE2d held defendant was convicted properly that he was seen with the active participants shortly the crime but was after never identified being as with them the time of the —crime nor before the crime. The Supreme Court states this clearly sufficient to a determination
In case, the instant the testimony was much stronger, because defendant Hall criminals both the robbery. before Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal.
3. Defendant no contends search was authorized because under the сircumstances his situation was equivalent to his under being arrest without a warrant. But not this is so. The hot police pursuit robbers, and obtained information as to the license tag which was traced to defendant’s They immediately wife. went to the residence where the defendant Bethey to voluntarily consented a search of his dwelling the robbery. There intimidation defendants which made them consent the search. The this case are more similar those (201 State, in Brand 747, 180), v. 129 Ga. App. 748 SE2d State, than to v. Flournoy 131 Ga. 171 SE2d 473), cited defendant. The mere faсt the police officers armed fails to show the defendants "overwhelmed” by the officers. The trial court heard the evidence and decided that the defendant Bethеy consented to the search.
4. After the usual voir dire questions "have been put an individual court,” examination be made either party inquiring the individual examined 692 any matter or which would illustrate any thing
touching interest, indicating or facts circumstances opinions, inclination, subject or bias any leaning, respecting matter, counsel, social and parties, rеligious, 59-705, juror. Code Ann. as fraternal connections amended. came, "Does
When his time defense counsel asked: you understand would everyone panel the law enforсing just vigorously by voting guilty the event the State fails its case prove beyond you by voting guilty [sic] reasonable doubt than would Objection under these was sustained charges?” abstract, ground merеly this was philosophical State, question. The Court in v. Supreme such cases as Hill (8) (142 65, 909); Ga. SE2d Curtis 150); and McNeal v. 228 Ga. (3) (187 635-636 have held that the trial court a discretion to limit examination under directly section to questions dealing specific case and may prohibit general questions. Defendant cites *3 The court did in authority point. not err sustaining objection the to this question as to the general knowledge law. Stolz, J., Deen, J., Judgment concurs. P. affirmed. specially.
concurs July September Decided Submitted Bennett, Wisenbaker, Saliba, Saliba & George M. for appellant. Cole,
H. Lamar
District
for
Attorney,
appellee.
Deen, Presiding Judge, concurring specially.
311)
In Merino v.
There was shown that two discovеred; only in the area before the crime was observed After one of these individuals was crime, of the discovery the the apprehended companion identified and a in party the noted our containing stolen This court goods. criminal the doctrine of jurisprudence endorsed the guilty by association reversed the conviction of cоmpanion.
What is the line between in the of discovery an identified criminal on one hand as circumstantial evidence of guilt other as unpermitted guilt cases, association? After studying it appears that order of discovery an identified company a crime to be circumstantial (1) perpetration of such required: are things eyewitness testimony that a certain number of persons (2) crime; took part positive identification of least (3) one of those persons; apprehension the parties immediately soon of the crime. perpetration Thus Merino there was two testimony persons involved, one of whom was identified and Merino apprehended soon thereafter сompany party; is circumstantial evidence of guilt. In Mealor there was no as to many how persons were involved in but two burglary only boys car in suspicious Only the area. one these suspects could be positively identified. When Mealor was later discovered in the of the identified this was not circumstantial guilt; evidence of what lacking was evidence that certain *4 were involved in the criminal act. there Unless is some proof as to involved in the individuals perpetration, conviction merely based upon discovery identified criminal within the ban falls by association.
Turning the case sub there was judice, in the car. remained one who two active The ap- parties discovered pellant This committed. the crime was a parties is and the evidence three elements case satisfies the appellant circumstantially persuasive therefore third pаrty the unidentified JENKINS. BROWN v. Stolz, Judge. 16, 1972, purchased Lee Brown Johnny
On October from the Badcock room furniture living bedroom and "Purchase Co. pursuant Furniture and Appliances ad- purchased Mr. Brown Agreement.” Plan Credit 6, 1972. Both furniture on November ditional items of account, to an pursuant open-end were made purchases Retail Georgia under the known as a аccount revolving Act, Code Ann. Sales Home Solicitation Installment and (Hereinafter (Ga. 659 et pp. seq.) Ch. 96-9 L. Act). Installment Sales 13, 1975, Furniture notified
On Badcock January defendant, Brown, in dеfault on his Mr. that he was note, accelerating payment account and that it was time. On due at that the entire balance thereby declaring for a writ of 4, 1975, Furniture filed Badcоck February Court of the State granted by possession, The thrust of this is Dougherty County. appeal it must be since issued improperly writ of possession and, the terms interest security based а valid upon interest can be Act, security the Installment Sales revolving to a credit pursuant created transaction account. Held: interest restricted, security specifically
Unless of two agreement created the contractual creating obligation of an parties payment secure collateral. designated in one as to certain rights Code, applies enacted Uniform Commercial interest security intended to create a transactions Ann. 109A-9 —102 in this state. property personal