Court Opinion

ID: 9569977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:09.297234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:30.980455
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
In Division 2, the majority opinion reverses the appellants’ convictions for simple assault. In reaching that result, the majority relies principally on Johnson v. State, 158 Ga. App. 432 (280 SE2d 856) (1981), and Riddle v. State, 145 Ga. App. 328 (243 SE2d 607) (1978), overruled on other grounds in Adsitt v. State, 248 Ga. 237 (282 SE2d 305) (1981).
Admittedly, the evidence in the instant case is weaker than that adduced in Riddle, wherein the defendant actually stalked his victim with a loaded 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun inside a textile plant. However, I believe the evidence in this case, when construed in favor of upholding the verdict, is stronger than that in Johnson, wherein the defendant only raised his hand and said: “We are going to get you.” Unlike Johnson, there is evidence in this case that at least one victim did feel endangered.
The appellants here blockaded the gas pump area in defiance of the victim’s plea for them to move and allow in other customers; they “propositioned” two female customers with obscene language and gestures; two of the defendants started to approach the victim’s work station, one with an up-raised arm as if he were going to throw something; they threatened the female attendant, saying: “We will get you, bitch, we will be back”; the defendants, in fact, did not desist and *753leave until they realized that the victim had telephoned the police.
In Rutherford v. State, 5 Ga. App. 482 (63 SE 570) (1908), the defendant held back a brick in his hand as if he meant to strike the victim, but backed down when the victim placed his hand in his pocket and claimed to have a gun. This court found that evidence “sufficient to authorize the finding of the jury that the defendant apparently intended a present assault upon the person of the prosecutor, and that he was only prevented from immediately carrying out such intention by the counter-menace of the prosecutor and by the interference of a third party.” Id.
In the instant case, the above evidence similarly authorized the finding that the appellants had the present intent to assault and that they were prevented from carrying it out by the counter-menace of the victim’s telephoning the police. The convictions of the appellants were thus supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope and Judge Beasley join in this dissent.