Heath v. StateHeath v. State
Marilyn Heath a/k/a Marilyn Council appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding her guilty of robbery
*595
by use of force in violation of
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The victim testified that Heath came to the door of her house and rang the doorbell. When the victim оpened the door, Heath told the victim that she was selling a coat and some CDs, but the victim told Heath she was not interested in buying any of the itеms. The victim did not invite Heath into her house, but Heath nevertheless came into the house saying that her heart was racing and she had to sit down. As Hеath came inside the house, she knocked the victim down across a couch and onto the floor. The victim testified that, becausе of her weakened physical condition, she struggled to get up from the floor. According to the victim, after she struggled for a couple of minutes to get up from the floor, Heath reached into the victim’s purse, which was on the couch, took $500 in cash and some credit сards out of the purse, and left the house. When the victim was finally able to get up, she called 911 and reported the theft. The victim later idеntified Heath from a photographic lineup arranged by police. Heath testified and admitted that she went to the victim’s house to sеll some items, but denied that she knocked the victim down or took anything from the victim.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.
Parker v. State,
2. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked a police officer to explain why an orаl statement given by Heath had not been reduced to writing or signed by Heath, and the officer responded that, “I hadn’t gotten to that because she had lawyered up or she had requested an attorney at that point.” Heath claims that this testimony improperly commented on her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Since Heath raised no objection at trial, this claim was waived.
Newton v. State,
3. Heath claims that the State impermissibly injected evidenсe of her character into the trial on two occasions. On the first occasion, a police officer testified during the State’s case that, when he put together a photographic lineup for the victim, he located a photo
*596
graph of Heath where “she had been booked” under another name. A reference to the fact that a prior photograph of a defendant existed where “he was booked in before” did not place the defendant’s character into issue.
Fulton v. State,
4. Heath contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of her prior convictions for impeachment purрoses under
5. Heath contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the various methods by which robbery could be committed in
The indictment chargеd that Heath committed the offense of robbery by use of force by knocking the victim down. But the trial court instructed the jury that robbery could be сommitted by all three of the methods set forth in
there is a reasonable possibility that the jury convicted the defendant of the commission of a crime in a manner not *597 charged in the indictmеnt, then the conviction [violates the defendant’s due process rights] because of a fatal variance between the proоf at trial and the indictment returned by the grand jury.
(Punctuation omitted.)
Childs v. State,
6. The trial court did not err by failing to give Heath’s requested instruction on the lesser includеd offense of theft by taking. All the State’s evidence showed the completed offense of robbery by use of force, and Heath testifiеd that she committed no offense at all. Because all the evidence showed either the completed offense of robbery by use of force or no offense, there was no evidence to support an instruction on the lesser included offense of theft by taking.
Huckeba v. State,
Judgment affirmed.