in a robbery by force case, the presence of valuables inside the premises can support an inference of intent to steal, particularly when no other motive is apparent
How later courts described this case
- in a robbery by force case, the presence of valuables inside the premises can support an inference of intent to steal, particularly when no other motive is apparent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pope, Chief Judge,
concurring specially,
I fully concur with the majority opinion. With respect to the restitution issues discussed in Division 5,1 write separately only to point out that while the amount of the victim’s damages was clearly established at trial, “[i]t is not sufficient for the trial judge to consider only the amount of the victim’s damages. [Cit.] Pursuant to OCGA § 17-14-10, the court must also consider other factors, including ‘(1) The present financial condition of the offender and his dependents; (and) 1(2) The probable future earning capacity of the offender and his dependents. . . .’” Slater v. State, 209 Ga. App. 723, 725 (4) ( 434 SE2d 547 ) (1993). In the absence of the required hearing, the trial court was [unable to consider these other factors. Thus, this case must be re-pnanded as held by the majority.
*738 Decided October 4, 1994.
John P. Howell, for appellant.
Alan A. Cook, District Attorney, Jeff B. Blandford, Anne M. Templeton, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.