Smith v. State

A victim's immediate presence in the context of the armed robbery statute extends to situations where the taking occurs outside of the victim's physical presence, if the item taken was initially under the victim's control.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A DeKalb County jury found Xavier Smith guilty as a party to the crime of armed robbery after the victim thereof identified Smith as one of two men who, just before closing time at 9:00 p.m., entered Mitchell’s Formalwear in South DeKalb Mall with a handgun, ordered the victim to the rear of the store, and took $120 of the store’s money that was laying on the counter in preparation for closing. Smith appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; that the trial court erred in refusing to secure a new jury panel for voir dire purposes since the panel saw Smith in handcuffs; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As each of these contentions is without merit, we affirm Smith’s conviction. 1. Smith’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails. The victim’s testimony, including an in-court identification of Smith as one of the two perpetrators of the armed robbery against him, established the essential elements of the indicted offense. “So long as there is some competent evidence to support each element of the offenses as charged, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.”1

Further, we reject Smith’s claim that, because he did not take the store’s money from the counter until after he forced the victim into the backroom, “at no point did Smith use a weapon to take money from the victim.” A victim’s “immediate presence” in the context of our armed robbery statute, OCGA § 16-8-41, extends “fairly far,” and a robbery conviction is usually upheld as to a taking even out of physical presence of victim, if what was taken was initially under the victim’s control or his responsibility.2 Here, the store’s money was under the victim’s control until Smith ordered the victim at gunpoint into the backroom so that Smith could take the money, which he did. Under these circumstances, a rational trier of fact could have found Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of armed robbery.3

Smith v. State

A victim's immediate presence in the context of the armed robbery statute extends to situations where the taking occurs outside of the victim's physical presence, if the item taken was initially under the victim's control.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report