Anderson v. State

Decision Date27 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. S91A1280,S91A1280
Citation413 S.E.2d 722,262 Ga. 7
PartiesANDERSON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Alden W. Snead, Office of the Public Defender, Douglasville, J.M. Raffauf, Decatur, for Anderson.

David J. McDade, Dist. Atty., Douglasville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Robert D. McCullers, Staff Atty., Atlanta, for the State.

FLETCHER, Justice.

Ricky Anderson was convicted of murdering Jerry Cowan. 1 Anderson appeals and we reverse.

On the evening of December 3, 1988, several people, including appellant and his brother Marc, gathered for an impromptu drinking party at Jerry Cowan's home. At some point in the evening, Cowan found Marc Anderson sitting on Cowan's wife's lap. Cowan grabbed his wife, took her into another room and struck her twice. When appellant attempted to intervene, Cowan began fighting with him. Cowan generally carried a hunting knife on his person and, during this first altercation with appellant, either Cowan's wife or one of the other bystanders removed the knife from its sheath on Cowan's belt and hid it.

Cowan and appellant eventually calmed down and even went so far as to shake hands with each other. Appellant and Marc Anderson were outside preparing to leave when appellant realized that he was forgetting the pet raccoon that Cowan had traded to him earlier in the evening for a handgun. As appellant walked back toward the house, Cowan approached him and the fighting began again.

During this second altercation, Marc Anderson, who, along with several others, had been watching the progress of the fight, drew his knife and said, "Well, I got to get in this." Someone shouted a warning about the knife and Cowan, who had been on the ground fighting with appellant, got to his feet and slapped Marc. Marc ran towards appellant's car but just as he was getting into the car, Cowan caught up with him. Marc turned and stabbed Cowan in the abdomen.

Cowan turned, saying something about a gun, and began toward the house. It is not clear how much time passed from the time Cowan began toward the house and the time he reached the porch leading into the house; nor is it clear whether Cowan paused on the porch for his wife to examine his wound or whether he was going directly into the house. At any rate, as Cowan was going toward the house, appellant went to his car, removed a rifle from the back seat, turned, and fired one shot. The bullet entered Cowan's head behind the right ear, passed through the brain and severed the brain stem. The coroner listed the cause of death as a "gunshot wound to the head associated with an incised wound to the abdomen." Marc Anderson was a co-indictee.

1. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. Appellant's sole defense at trial was that of justification, contending that he knew Cowan and Cowan's violent nature, that Cowan was headed into the house to get a gun, and that Cowan intended to shoot him. There was testimony at trial concerning Cowan's temper, his reputation for violence, the fact that Cowan was a hunter and frequently used weapons, and concerning the fact that appellant was aware that there were several weapons inside the house, including the handgun that appellant had traded to Cowan earlier in the evening for the pet raccoon.

Appellant requested that the jury be charged on the affirmative defense of justification in the form of self defense and on the burden of proof as to that affirmative defense. Following the trial court's charge, appellant objected concerning the court's charge on the burden of proof, arguing that because he had presented evidence of justification for the killing, the burden was on the state to disprove that affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court's charge had not made that clear.

Where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of justification and testifies to the same, the burden is on the state to disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Accord State v. Royal, 247 Ga. 309, 275 S.E.2d 646 (1981). Further, where requested charges are correct statements of the law and are adjusted to the evidence, as were appellant's requested charges on justification and on the burden of proof with respect to such an affirmative defense, to fail to give those charges or to at least charge the basic content of the requests is harmful error on the part of the trial court, requiring reversal. State v. Shepperd, 253 Ga. 321, 320 S.E.2d 154 (1984). Finally, when an accused relies upon the affirmative and substantive defense of justification, the jury must be informed that if they believe the accused to have been justified, it would be their duty to acquit him; failure to so charge the jury is reversible error. Witt v. State, 231 Ga. 4, 200 S.E.2d 112 (1973).

In this case, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Bruce v. Smith
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 5, 2001
    ...Lofton, 237 Ga. at 276, 227 S.E.2d 327. 12. See Griffin v. State, 267 Ga. 586, 586-587, 481 S.E.2d 223 (1997); Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 7, 9-10, 413 S.E.2d 722 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Coleman v. State, 264 Ga. 253, 443 S.E.2d 626 (1994); State v. Shepperd, 253 Ga. 321, 320 S......
  • Bennett v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1995
    ...justification before the jury and placed on the State the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 7(2), 413 S.E.2d 722 (1992). Contradicting appellant's testimony, however, Wages testified that the victim did not threaten appellant. Thus, the i......
  • Hill v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1992
    ...Georgia, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II, Criminal Cases, p. 22 (2d ed. 1991). Nonetheless, defendant cites Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 7, 413 S.E.2d 722, arguing that the trial court's charge on the law of alibi is deficient because "it failed to instruct the jury that the Stat......
  • Sinkfield v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1996
    ...Judges of Georgia, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases, pp. 74-75 (2d ed.1991); see also, Anderson v. The State, 262 Ga. 7, 10, 413 S.E.2d 722 (1992), rev'd on other grounds, 264 Ga. 253, 443 S.E.2d 626 (1994).4 Simmons v. The State, 172 Ga.App. 695, 696, 324 S.E.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT