Court Opinion

ID: 9852695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:35:02.095159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:32.575421
License: Public Domain

Hall, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion holds that as a matter of law Woodall must be acquitted of the charge of armed robbery. The result is that he cannot be tried again. Marchman v. State, 234 Ga. 40 (215 SE2d 467) (1975). I dissent for the reason that the evidence listed below supports a finding that Woodall was a co-conspirator in the robbery.
1. Just prior to the robbery Woodall had driven Welch to a side road in the immediate vicinity of the Bay Service Station.
2. The ski mask, shotgun and overcoat used in the robbery were in Woodall’s car until removed by Welch. Further, the shotgun had recently been given to Woodall by his father. Woodall had also recently purchased a ski mask similar to that which was used in the robbery.
3. Welch had been drinking quite heavily in Woodall’s presence prior to his leaving Woodall’s car and heading in the direction of the Bay Service Station.
4. The individual who robbed the gas station fits the description of Welch, as well as appearing somewhat intoxicated at the time of the robbery.
5. After Welch had embarked from Woodall’s car and headed in the direction of the gas station, Woodall drove around in the immediate vicinity of this station for approximately thirty minutes until he saw police cars at the station, at which time he fled.
6. After Welch’s confession at the scene of the robbery, the officers obtained an arrest warrant and went to Woodall’s residence at about 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning. Woodall was dressed. The officers presented the arrest warrant and asked him "if he knew what this was all about and he replied that he did.”
7. Woodall admitted leaving his. residence with *535Welch about an hour before the robbery and further admitted that Welch had been drinking at the time.
It is important to remember that "[t]he mere possibility that someone other than the defendant committed the crime ... is not such a reasonable hypothesis as must be excluded in order for circumstantial evidence to authorize a verdict of guilty.” Eason v. State, 217 Ga. 831 (4) (125 SE2d 488) (1962). While the evidence of Woodall’s guilt is circumstantial, it is nevertheless evidence of guilt. "Criminals do not normally choose to engage in felonious enterprises before an audience of police officials.” Trupiano v. United States, 334 U. S. 699, 715.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Nichols and Presiding Justice Undercofler concur in this dissent.