*1 Sognier JJ., concur. with this consistent July 8, 1987 July 22, 1987. denied appellant. Shumaker, G. John appellees. Dickins, Jr., B.
Oliver THE STATE. 74138. WATKINS obstructing Appellant aggravated assault and was convicted of appeal, was insufficient On he contends that officеr. support he that was entitled assault and the conviction acquittal an officer on the obstruction of to a directed verdict charge. episode charge of do- po- from an
The assault resulted involving aрpellant Delois Smith. mestic and his violence Smith were still embroiled lice officer testified that the response to an at their home when the officer arrived help emergency Smith, told and that the officer was call for chair, her with her with a threatened Smith that had beaten also testi- of scissors. officer and stabbed were, officer after told where the scissors fied that Smith gun. along them, identified the scis- with a knife and Smith appellant had her and sоrs to the officer as those with which showed stabbed on her a fresh wound on her back blood stab emergency testi- Two to the scene clothes. medical technicians called puncture her back blood fied that Smith had a fresh her wound on clothing. of them that the wound was consistent One testified having scissors. by witnesses testified with that the scene been inflicted Several disordered, violence.
Testifying
trial,
Smith recanted
statements
for the defense аt
police,
that she had made
admit on cross-examination
but did
also testified that
the statements at the time of the incident. She
his
about a week after
reconciled their differences
denying
behalf,
he stabbed
own
arrеst.
admitting
in or-
held the
to her back
that he had
threatening
drop
him.
force
with which she was
der to
her to
vio-
arose
aggravated assault. The evidence
arrested for
lent resistance
is uncontradicted that
so,
Even
it took four men
restrain
cooperation,
were
to handcuff
without
unable
finally gave
which
stalemate.
combatants
reached a
appellant’s argument
charge,
1. As to the
the statements she made at the
there
sinсe Smith recanted
probative
charge.
him
insufficient
evidence to convict
on that
note, however, that
of Smith’s statements to the
of-
*2
stabbing
appellant’s
regarding
ficer
was substantive
(Gibbons
(286
717)
guilt
spite
(1982)),
App.
State, 248
v.
Ga.
SE2d
de-
subsеquent
App.
State,
Smith’s
Brown v.
recantation.
(1) (333
“
124) (1985).
SE2d
responsibility
appeal
weigh
‘Our
to
is not
the evidence and
give
opinion
weight
a de novo
of the evidence
determine if there is sufficient evidence to authorize the trial court’s
judgment’
light
in the
that evidence is ‘viewed
favorable to the
of the
credibility
weight
[Cit.]
verdict.’
witnesses are
of the evidence and the
questions
making
[Cits.]
for the factfinder.
this de-
may
relationship
termination, the factfinder
considеr the
of the wit-
feelings
party.
nesses
involved and
[Cit.]
toward the
apparently
Here, the factfinder
chose to believe the
of the
the
prerogative.
[witnesses
State],
[its]
[Cit.]
as was
[stabbing],
wife denied the
the factfinder
draw reаsonable infer-
presented.”
App.
ences
68
State,
from the evidence
Patterson v.
181 Ga.
503) (1986).
SE2d
permit
The evidence at
was
sufficient to
a rational trier of
appellant guilty beyond
fact to find
a reasonable dоubt of
(99
560)
assault. Jackson v.
“An arrest for crime a probable be made law enforcement . . . without a if warrant... the officer has cause to believe family violence, that an аct of 19-13-1, as defined Code Section (1) paragraphs been committed or a criminal offense as set forth (2) persons and opposite of Code Section 19-13-1 has occurred between of dwelling together openly
sex
in a meretricious relation-
ship.
.”
. OCGA 17-4-20
The uncontradicted
concerning
accusing appellant
witness
the victim’s
presence
stabbing her,
of a stab wound on the victim’s
presence
weapons,
of several
аnd the
disordered condition
clearly
probable
scene
established at trial that the officers had
family
ap-
to
pellant’s
Therefore,
believe that an act of
violence had occurred.
arrest was nоt invalid
lack
cause.
(1)
Thompson
State, 248
v.
relies on
685) (1981),
proposition
arrest was
warrantless
for the
SE2d
place
illegal
How-
in his home without his consent.
because it took
Thompson’s
Supreme
arrest was
ever,
held
that сase
Court
place
illegal
with-
in his home without warrant
“because it took
(Empha-
exigent
[Cits.]” Id.
consent.
circumstances
out either
clearly
exigent
supplied.)
cir-
established
the evidence here
sis
Since
misplaced.
Thompson
(65
cumstances,
Similarly,
reliance on
cited
Smith v.
84 Ga.
inapposite
by appellant,
arrest there
that the warrantless
statutory authority
illegal
it;
found to be
we have shown
thorized
because there was
expressly
au-
above,
arrest was
warrantless
statute.
of record authorized rational trier
Since
guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt
obstruction
find
(2)
(Jackson Virginia, supra; Gay
v.
(1986)),
deny appellant’s motion
it was not error
(1)
acquittal. Humphrey
part. fully I concur of the conviction with thе affirmance arresting beyond officer, clear that the an it appellant officershad to believe the had committed Indeed, the circum- his wife. based on apparent scene, the the officerswere not authorized stances they appellant aggravated assault, been to arrest the would have they generally See OCGA I remiss had not done so. 17-4-20 presented agree, however, was suffi- cannot cient to that the evidence at trial support assault. conviction years imprison- convicted and sentenced to 20 only ment for an the was to the both he the witnesses offense which incident, at trial never occurred. The wife’s pulled appellant during effect the the that she strug- quarrel home; of a that the course gled domestic weapon; during of the the course of with her struggle knocking table, the fell a coffee the two of them across appеl- struggle, floor; that as the scissors continued put my “got them in to take the lant gun away the scissors and back tried put put me”; down and that after she the might scissors the scissors. the wife indicated the down
781 expressed responsible havе been uncertainty for the wound her some stating might this, the also have wound been about by glass I fell on . . .” caused of the when the table. “some testimony, characterizing disregard majority chooses to it as a of the earlier “rеcantation” witness’ officers me, the had “stabbed” with the scissors. It strikes testimony may appropriately however, that wife’s more explanation amplification characterized of her earlier as state- versions, ment than “recantation” it. In both the wife main- by tained that she had been stabbed the scissors or some other object during quarrel; course of a while domestic her state- standing alone, ment at the that the deliber- ately scissors, assaulted at trial reveals defensively offensively inhe fact used the than rather stabbing may and that the even have been accidental. Under such circumstances, wife’s out-of-court statement constitutes a slender felony reed indeed which to base a conviction. long has, course, It been rule in this state that the obliged, possible, any apparent where to reconcile conflicts the tes-
timony speak e.g., Stuckey so Seе, as to make each witness the truth. 189) (1957); Cotton v. sufficiency 753, Moreover, longer a criminal case be evaluated under the “any appear standard; rather, evidence” it must that the a whole was sufficient to enable rаtional trier find the beyond guilty generally defendant a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. 560) 443 U. S. I LE2d do entirety, case, not believe that the evidence in this in its viewed supports 20-year aggra- conviction sentence for cоnsequently portion assault, vated I and would reverse that judgment. Patterson court’s decision in by majority, support relied does present affirmance of case, assault conviction in the only by the offense at issue there was witnessed not the victim but deputy also two sheriffs. Judge Birdsong I Judge am authorized to state that Chief *4 Sognier join in July July 1987. dismissed Geeter, Shane M. Attorney, Briley, appellee.
Joseph H. District CREDIT et GENERAL ELECTRIC BRADFORD al. v. 74054. OF GEORGIA. CORPORATION (GECC) Corporation Georgia Appellee General Electric Credit seeking appellants Bradford, filed deficiency judgment. James and Jerome suit Appellee alleged had that the Bradfords exe- mortgage, giving promissory note GECC secur- cuted a ity apрellants and chattel pieces equipment which, when construction interest various obligation, GECC had taken defaulted on their appellants’ applying proceeds A sold, of ciency indebtedness. defi- appеllee remained, $56,760.10 filed for which suit. balance of appellants’ GECC, sole enumeration er- favor appeal judgment ror on from the entered is the denial their motion for directed verdict. precluded obtaining
Appellants contend that GECC a de- provide ficiencyjudgment against proper them because GECC did not any provides: “At under OCGA 11-9-506.That statute time notice before the secured any disposed party . . . the debtor or collatеral writing agreed in other secured unless otherwise by tendering obliga- of all default redeem the collateral fulfillment tions has held that a secured collateral...” court debtor any time must redeem his collateral at before be notified its America &c. sale. See Credithrift appellants bar, the case at GECC notified days repossessed would be after 10 collateral sold elapsed responsi- letter; the date of would apрellants remaining sale; ble for the account balance after the right payment had account; days in full of to redeem the collateral payment [10 and that such “must be remitted on or before repossessed nоtice].” date of All of from the collateral 10-day period notice sold well after the set forth each letter elapsed. According supra, holding Credithrift, court’s to this [they] “[t]he had, law, [s] debtor matter of been notified аny [their] could redeem time before the sale. . .” collateral applicable only holding GECC Credithrift where, limits sale decline to there, the of the sale notice letter contains the date redemption up right plаce sale, to a time the date of but the at a date later than that listed in the notice letter. We takes adopt interpretation espe- Credithrift, such a narrow cially setting case at the factual bar wherein debtors