Court Opinion

ID: 9566459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:39:34.768152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:33.965703
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur in Divisions 1 and 3. As to Division 2,1 agree that the court did not err in refusing to give the requested charge on circumstantial evidence. It was not adjusted to the evidence in this case, which was dependent on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the latter to corroborate and strengthen the direct evidence. The court did charge on the definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence and illustrated both. The charge as requested conveyed the notion that all of the evidence was circumstantial, which was not accurate. The court was not required to reframe the requested charge to accommodate the actual body of evidence.
It is for that reason that I concur in the holding that the rejection of the requested charge was not error. Harris v. State, 202 Ga. App. 618 (414 SE2d 919) (1992). I do not join in the majority’s additional discussion of this issue.