Staton v. StateStaton v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sognier
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, namely, criminal damage to рroperty in the first degree. On appeal he contends (1) that the indictment was void because it omitted an essential element of conspiracy, to wit, an agreement; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to charge that “agreement” is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy; and (3) that the evidenсe is insufficient to support the verdict because there was no showing of a conspiracy to interfere with the operation of a public utility, no showing that appellant entered into an agreement tо commit a substantive crime, and was based on circumstantial evidence which did not exclude every reаsonable hypothesis save that of guilt of the accused.
Appellant was an employee of Gеorgia Power Company, whose employees were on strike. Appellant was at the scene of a picket line and told Craig Rhodes, another employee, that “we was wasting our time walking the picket line and we ought to do something to hurt Georgia Power Company, such as shooting the transformers.” Rhodes said hе didn’t have a gun so Staton offered Rhodes the use of his (Staton’s) gun. Rhodes then got a pistol from appellant’s truck; Rhodes and Frankie Crowe departed in a vehicle and Rhodes fired two shots into a transformer. They returned to the picket line and Rhodes returned the pistol to Staton. Crowe then took Rhodes home; en route, they stopped and Rhodes shot two transformers with Crowe’s rifle.
Appellant gave a sworn, written statement to an investigator with the Putnam County sheriffs office acknowledging the conversation about shooting transformers; appellant also gave his pistol to the investigator. In his statement appellant stated he got his gun аnd gave it to Rhodes; in his testimony at trial appellant denied giving the gun to Rhodes, and said his (appellant’s) son tоld him Rhodes took the gun out of appellant’s truck.
1. In regard to appellant’s contention that the indictmеnt is void, appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the indictment at trial. “One who waives the right to be tried upon an indictment perfect in form and substance by failing to demur and takes his chances on an acquittal, will not be heard after conviction to urge defects in the indictment unless the defects are so great that the indictment is absolutely void. [Cits.] Every indictment. . . shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which statеs the offense in the terms of the Code or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be еasily understood by the jury. Code § 27-701 . . .”
*573
Mealor v. State,
135 Ga. App. 682, 683 (1) (218 SE2d 683) (1975);
Dotson v. State,
160 Ga. App. 898, 899 (2) (288 SE2d 608) (1982). The indictment in this case is set forth in the terms of
2. Appellant contends the court erred by failing tо charge the jury that “agreement” is the essential element of the crime of conspiracy. The trial court charged the jury in the exact language of
3. Appellant contends thе evidence is not sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict, arguing first that there was no showing of а conspiracy to interfere with the operation of a public utility. The indictment charged appellant with conspiracy to commit the crime of criminal damage to property in the first degree.
Appellant’s argument that the verdict is based on circumstantial еvidence is without merit. As pointed out in the preceding paragraph, there was direct evidence thаt appellant wanted to do something to hurt Georgia Power Company. There was also direct evidence that Rhodes was offered the use of a gun by appellant and that Rhodes used it to shoot two transformers.
The weight of the evidence and credibility of witnesses are questions for the triers of fact, Miller v. State, 163 Ga. App. 889 (296 SE2d 182) (1982), and we find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. We hold that a rational trier of fact could find from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant’s guilt beyond *574 reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Judgment affirmed.
Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.