Rushing v. State
Rushing v. State
Opinion of the Court
Defendants William Griffin, Jr., John Henry Hightower and Lee Charles Rushing were each convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. They urge that reversal is required because they were jointly represented by a single appointed attorney.
At trial defendants did not object to joint representation, and their appellate presentation has failed to demon
Defendants’ remaining allegation, that the state did not meet its burden of showing the value of the stolen property to be $100.00 or more at the time of the theft, is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgments and sentences appealed from are
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.