Smith v. State

Shulman, Judge.

Co-defendants Hearing and Smith were convicted of the offense of armed robbery. We affirm.

1. Both appellants assert error on the general grounds.

A. Specifically, appellant-Hearing complains that the evidence adduced at trial, showing no more than his mere presence at the scene of the crime (a "Seven-Eleven” store) shortly before the robbery occurred, did not support, as a matter of law, a finding of guilty. See in this regard Sweat v. State, 119 Ga. App. 646 (1) (168 SE2d 654).

We must take issue with appellant’s interpretation and summation of the evidence. In addition to…