Rome Georgia criminal lawyers win appeal in burglary case based on circumstantial evidence
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently had to determine if circumstantial evidence which was consistent with both the prosecution’s story and the defendant’s story was enough to convict a defendant of burglary and criminal trespass. The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to find the defendant guilty, since there was a reasonable alternative to the prosecution’s story.
In Parker v. State, the defendant, Parker, was convicted by a jury after he was accused of stealing a generator and a guitar from the victim’s barn. Parker argued he was simply dropping off a saw. Parker knew the victim through a friend which he stayed with. Five days before the incident Parker tried to sell a saw to the victim, but the victim did not want it. The victim then went out of town for a few days. When the victim returned, there was an answering machine message by Parker stating that he had left the saw in the victim’s barn; however, the victim never gave Parker permission to enter the barn. It was also then that the victim realized the generator and guitar were missing.
Parker then called the victim to ask if he could come by and talk about selling him the saw. The victim agreed and notified police that Parker would be coming. Soon after Parker arrived, officers arrested him. Three months later a friend of Parker’s told the victim that Parker had brought over a machine that was either a generator or an air compressor two weeks prior to the arrest, but that he never saw a guitar. Additionally, the friend Parker was staying with testified that she saw Parker at the victim’s house while the victim was out of town. Parker told her that he was dropping off a saw, and she never saw Parker take anything. Furthermore, the victim stated on cross that a friend of his entered his barn while he was away to retrieve a four-wheeler. This friend also saw Parker at the barn and described him as fidgety.
On appeal, Parker argued the circumstantial evidence was not enough for a conviction. The general rule is that for there to be a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the facts must only be consistent with guilt and must exclude every other reasonable possibility. The state contended the evidence was direct, since witnesses saw Parker at the scene. However, the court disagreed by reasoning that the witnesses never saw Parker take anything. Furthermore, the court noted that proximity without additional evidence of participation in a crime cannot support a conviction. The only additional evidence offered was that the defendant was fidgety which the court dismissed as hearsay and of no value. Since there was another reasonable possibility aside from the state’s burglary story, a conviction of Parker was improper and the court reversed his convictions.
Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.
