Anderson v. State

The officers' observations of defendant and his accomplice at a nearly finished new home at 3:30 a.m., combined with evidence of forced entry, supported a conclusion that defendant possessed certain tools in his vehicle to disconnect and steal new appliances from the home.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Michael D. Anderson, Jr. appeals his convictions for burglary, possession of tools for the commission of a crime, use of a license plate for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of a vehicle, and affixing a license plate with intent to conceal or misrepresent, contending that: 1 the evidence was insufficient to support the possession of tools count; and the trial court erred in: 2 permitting certain testimony; 3 failing to charge on criminal trespass; 4 charging on grave suspicion; and 5 rejecting his ineffective assistance claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, and Anderson no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Pollard v. State .1 Nor can the evidence be reweighed or witness credibility reassessed. Walters v. State .2

So considered, the evidence shows that, in response to a rash of burglaries of new homes still under construction, Williamscraft Group contracted with off-duty police officers for night-time surveillance at the East Park subdivision in Cobb County. Thefts had included the loss of dishwashers, built-in ovens, cook top ovens, vent hoods, microwaves, kitchen sinks, and door units. Janice Wood, the company’s quality control manager, testified that at night the houses were secured and all garage and front doors were locked. Wood stated that a garage door could be opened only by use of a wall switch inside the garage.

Anderson v. State

The officers' observations of defendant and his accomplice at a nearly finished new home at 3:30 a.m., combined with evidence of forced entry, supported a conclusion that defendant possessed certain tools in his vehicle to disconnect and steal new appliances from the home.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report