Aрpellants Lunz and McCurry were indicted, along with Ricky Pollard, for the offenses of armed robbery and aggravated assault. Prior to trial, Pollard entered а plea of guilty. Lunz and McCurry were jointly tried before a jury and each was convicted of the offenses charged. Although each filed a separate appeal, a common trial transcript was filed and like errors enumerated. The cases have, thus, *894 been consolidated for review.
1. Appellants assign error to the trial court’s denial of the motions for directed verdicts of acquittal made on behalf of each at the close of the State’s evidence. The State presented evidence to show that by sometime before midnight on May 5, 1984, Dean Bell was the sole attendant at the “Starvin’ Marvin” convenience store on Highway 29 in Coweta County. Around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. on May 6, 1984, Pollard, Lunz, and McCurry entered the store together. One bought cigarettes and they all stoоd around talking for five or ten minutes. Bell recognized all three as regular customers. He testified that he thought the three came in and left again an hour or so later. Then around 5:00 a.m., all three returned and all stood at the counter where one asked Bell how much money was in the cash register. Pоllard was standing in the middle with McCurry on his left and Lunz on his right. Bell replied that there was “not that much” money. Bell testified that, although he could not remember which, one stated, “We’re going to hold you up,” to which he responded that it would not be worth it because he could push the alarm button to summon the police. Pollard tried to jump over the counter, apparently to see the alarm button. He then told Bell that they were going to hold him up. When Bell again resрonded that it was not worth it, Pollard replied, “We think it is.” Then he shot Bell in the face with a .25 cali-bre handgun supplied to him earlier that day by McCurry. Lunz and McCurry ran out of and behind the store. Pollard took the cash register containing approximately $157.
A. J. Beckom testified that shortly before 5:00 a.m. on May 6, he enterеd the store and noticed all three looking highly nervous. He warned Bell that they were acting suspiciously and were up to something. They followed him down thе aisle of the store and stood at the counter while he paid for his purchases, then closely followed him out the door. When Beckom stoрped outside the door to let them pass, they walked to the driver’s side of Beckom’s truck. Pollard began to speak to Beckom and apрellants walked away to the side and stood there. Beckom brought out his own pistol and Pollard asked him where he was going and if he was going to Quail Hollоw Trailer Court (the area where Pollard, Lunz and McCurry resided). Beckom replied negatively and drove across to a nearby phone booth. While there, Beckom heard a shot and turned to see Lunz and McCurry run out of and behind the store. He saw Pollard still in the store struggling with the cash register. Beckom then left to summon help.
Each appellant’s statement places all three at the “Starvin’ Marvin” store when the armed robbery occurred and when Bell was shot. Each appellant’s statement also admits being joined by Pollard a short way from the store and disposing of the gun used by Pollard by throwing it into a neаrby pond. The gun was later retrieved by police. *895 McCurry then went to his home. Lunz and Pollard went to their shared residence. Appellants were arrested on May 8, 1984, advised of their Miranda and other constitutional rights, and provided statements to police the same day. After a Jackson-Denno hearing, the trial court determinеd the statements to have been made freely and voluntarily.
Appellants assert that the State proved only their presence which is insufficient to convict them as parties to these crimes. OCGA § 16-2-20 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is а party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime, (b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he: . . . (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures anothеr to commit the crime.” Both appellants admit they were with Pollard during the commission of the crimes, but claim to have had no prior knowledge that Pоllard planned to rob the store. In McCurry’s statement he admits that on the night of the offenses he heard Pollard talk about holding up the “Starvin’ Marvin,” but he thought Pollard was joking. Lunz’ statement does not refer to any advance knowledge, 1 asserting instead that when Pollard began to talk with Bell about the hold-up, Lunz urged Pollаrd to leave with him. Bell, however, testified that when he was shot all three were standing together and he heard no one tell Pollard not to do it or protest that “it wasn’t right.”
“Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to convict one of being a party to the crime, but presenсe, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Parham v. State,
2. Appellants’ remaining enumerations of error challenge the denial of their respective motions to sever their trials. “In
Cain v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
During Lunz’ testimony presented after the denial of his motion for directed verdict of acquittal, he testified that on that night and prior tо the robbery, he heard Pollard mention that he had had a dispute with an old man who worked in the “Starvin’ Marvin” store and that he would like someone to knock him out and rob him. Bell, the victim, was a young man. Lunz claimed that he did not believe him, stating, “He made mention several times. Crazy things.”