Jackson v. StateJackson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Smith
Willie B. Jackson was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery. Jackson’s motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.
1. Jackson enumerates as error the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt. Specifically, he objects to that part of the charge in which the court stated that “the State is not required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty.” Jack
2. In his second enumeration, Jackson contends that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows: “If upon a consideration of the evidence in this case you find that thére is a conflict in the testimony of the witnesses or a conflict between a witness or witnesses, it is your duty to settle this conflict, if you can, without believing that any witness made a false statement. If you cannot do this, then it becomes your duty to believe that witness or those witnesses you think best entitled to believe. It is for you alone to determine what testimony to credit and what testimony you will discredit.” (Emphasis supplied.) Jackson protests that conflicts in testimony are a matter for the jury to resolve and that the court’s instruction intrudes into its exclusive province. However, as in his argument in support of his enumeration treated in Division 1, Jackson emphasizes a single phrase that does not accurately reflect the court’s instruction as a whole. “The totality of the instruction, taken from Volume 2 of the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, cannot reasonably be heard by the jury to curtail or interfere with its fact-finding role in any way.” Frost v. State, 200 Ga. App. 267, 271 (6) (407 SE2d 765) (1991).
3. In his final enumeration, Jackson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him under the standard of
Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Viewed to support the verdict, the evidence shows that the victim, who was operating a Flash Foods store, was robbed at gunpoint by a man wearing a mask at about 6:00 a.m. Ten to fifteen minutes after the robbery, Jackson was seen walking through a trailer park. He was picked up by a police officer, who noticed that Jackson was “sweating.” Investigators located a pile of clothes that had been left in the woods behind the robbery scene. A tracking dog was allowed to get the scent of what Jackson was wearing at the time of his arrest. The dog then followed Jackson’s trail from the front of the store to the clothes found behind the store and then to the trailer park where Jackson
The State’s evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find Jackson guilty of armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Pope, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.