Wilson v. StateWilson v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Birdsong
Jason Eric Wilson appeals his conviction of theft by receiving a stolen automobile, in violation of
1. Appellant’s first three enumerations of error maintain that because the State failed to prove that he knew or should have known the automobile was stolen, the evidence was insufficient to allow the case to go to the jury or to sustain his conviction. Construing the evidence in favor of the verdict as we must (Grant v. State, 195 Ga. App. 463 (393 SE2d 737)), we find the evidence establishes that two men stole a 1967 Volkswagen that was in very good, almost factory condition, and that after one of them kept the car for seven months, he transferred the automobile to Wilson with a bill of sale stating Wilson paid $100 for the car. Wilson in fact paid nothing. Later after attempting to sell the car for $500, Wilson sold the car for $350. Subsequently, that purchaser sold the car to another person for $500. The evidence also shows that Wilson told the investigating police officer that he thought something was wrong because he was given the car. Moreover, the evidence further shows that Wilson did not register the car in his name while it was in his possession or purchase new license tags. The jury found Wilson guilty and recited on their verdict that “the defendant may not have known, but he should have known, that the car was stolen.”
A conviction for violation of
Under our law, motions for a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law (
Wilson’s contention that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a new trial under
Further, on appeal, the presumption of innocence no longer avails and we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. Watts v. State, 186 Ga. App. 358 (366 SE2d 849). Doing so, we conclude that the jury rationally could have found from the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence, that every reasonable hypothesis was excluded except that Wilson knew or should have known that the automobile in question was stolen, and the transcript reveals ample evidence from which any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson was guilty of the offense of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).
2. Wilson also contends that the trial court erred by allowing a prosecution witness to testify under a grant of immunity apparently because Wilson was not given notice of the hearing in another proceeding on the grant of immunity and then was not allowed to participate in the decision on whether immunity should have been granted. Although it is not clear from the record when Wilson received notice
*793
that the State had moved for the grant of immunity, it is apparent that he was aware of the proceedings prior to the trial. Therefore, Wilson’s defense was not prejudiced by any delay in the notice given. Moreover, Wilson does not contend that there was any violation of
3. Wilson’s final enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to attack his character by attacking the character of a State’s witness. We find no merit to this argument. The State’s witness was asked whether Wilson knew the witness had been convicted of theft before Wilson accepted the automobile. This question in no way implicates Wilson’s character, but the information sought is relevant to Wilson’s knowledge of whether the car was stolen. See Prather v. State, 116 Ga. App. 696 (158 SE2d 291). Accordingly, this evidence was not inadmissible even though it might arguably place Wilson’s character in issue to the extent someone might infer that his relationship with a convicted thief reflected adversely upon him. See Drake v. State, 245 Ga. 798, 802 (267 SE2d 237).
Judgment affirmed.
Pope, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.