Anderson v. State

Decision Date09 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 36008,36008
Citation245 Ga. 619,266 S.E.2d 221
PartiesANDERSON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Harvey & Lewellen, Walter B. Harvey, Leonard C. Lewellen, Jefferson, for appellant.

Nat Hancock, Dist. Atty., Timothy G. Madison, Asst. Dist. Atty., Winder, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Nicholas G. Dumich, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWLES, Justice.

The appellant, Lemuel Anderson, was indicted by the Jackson County grand jury for the murders of Larry Bullock and Phil Foster. Following a jury trial he was found guilty of each offense and received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment. He appeals the verdict and judgment to this court.

Statement of Facts

On the night of July 27, 1976, Bullock and Foster were shot to death while they had stopped on the roadside of Interstate Highway 85 near Jefferson, Jackson County, Georgia. Following an investigation which covered over 20 months appellant was arrested and charged with these murders. Both victims worked for Brown Trucking Company out of Atlanta, and were on their way to report to work when the shooting occurred. The bodies were discovered by a passing motorist who came upon their automobile and saw a body lying on the highway. Upon stopping he also found a second body near the rear of the automobile. Neither of the victims exhibited any signs of life. There were no weapons observed near the victims.

GBI Agent Pat Patterson initially investigated the case and found very few clues. In October, 1977, he received information from an informant which pointed to appellant's involvement. He also received an additional tip naming Pat Davenport, Charles Champion, Miller Sutton, Elaine Carson and appellant as being involved in the murders. Statements were obtained from all parties except appellant.

At trial Miller Sutton and Charles Champion testified for the State saying that on the afternoon of July 27, 1976, they had joined appellant in Winder, Georgia and had driven around the area in appellant's cousin's automobile. Both witnesses testified as to some drinking but stated they did not see appellant drinking. Later the three drove to Elaine Carson's house at Jefferson, Georgia, picked her up and then drove to Pat Davenport's house. She also joined the group. They then decided to drive to Buford, Georgia in order to pick up appellant's girlfriend. Sutton, Champion, Carson and Davenport all testified that while they were driving down the entrance ramp from State Route 129 to I-85, a car behind them began honking its horn and flashing its lights. They testified that the occupants of the car behind continued to blink their lights, sound their horn, and began to yell for appellant to pull over. The car came very close to striking or sideswiping the car in which appellant and the witnesses were riding. Appellant finally pulled his car over and the other car in which Foster and Bullock were riding pulled close behind appellant's car. At this point the passenger of the following car approached appellant's car and said, "Niggers, what ya'll trying to prove." That individual also said, "I'm the pilot and this is my co-pilot." Shortly after those remarks, appellant's car door opened and the first shot was fired. The witness Sutton testified he had seen no gun prior to that time. Three or four more shots were heard. The witness Carson testified that after the man who approached appellant's car door repeated what was said above, appellant exited the car, some words were exchanged and she then heard a shot. The witness Carson testified that appellant was doing all of the shooting and appellant was the only one who had left the automobile.

When appellant got back in the automobile he told the witness Carson who was crying, "Shut up woman, or you'll get the same thing they got." When Sutton asked appellant why he had shot, the appellant answered, "I had to or they would have done it to us." Champion testified substantially the same and added that he saw nothing in the hands of the individual who approached the car, but stated he could not see his right hand. He also said that the other individual at first held a beer can and also had what appeared to be a pistol in his back pocket. He related that when the individual next to appellant reached in the door, appellant pulled a pistol and fired, causing the man to stagger backwards. Further, after appellant shot the first fellow, he twisted and shot backwards towards the other individual.

Following the shooting, the group, with appellant driving, traveled to Buford, Georgia and stopped at Matthew Bishop's residence. While there appellant used the telephone and Bishop overheard him say that he had shot somebody on the highway. Carson also heard appellant say to Bishop, "I wasted two honkies on the expressway."

A truck driver by the name of Moody testified that on the night of the incident between 11 and 12 p. m. he was travelling south on I-85 when he passed two cars which were parked, one behind the other, on the side of the highway. These cars were in the same location where the bodies of the victims were eventually found. This witness observed a group of approximately four or five people standing outside the cars and who appeared to be arguing. Moody did not stop but a short time later one of the two cars he had observed earlier, sped by him at approximately 100 miles per hour.

Expert testimony was introduced regarding the autopsies on the victims, both of whom had gunshot wounds to their bodies. Both died from internal bleeding. A ballistics expert testified that he had received and run tests on four .38 caliber bullets with similar markings, and three were identified as coming from a .38 caliber Armenius Tiger Titan pistol. The bullets were those removed from the bodies or found at the scene. The fourth bullet was only a fragment and positive identification of it could not be made. However, it did indicate similar markings to the other bullets. There were no weapons found at the scene. None of the other occupants of appellant's car had any weapons. One victim owned no weapon, and although the other victim had previously owned a pistol it had been missing for some time prior to the date of the homicide.

Enumerations of Error

(1) Appellant contends, "The weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict and the law." This court as a reviewing court must not necessarily pass on the weight of the evidence, but on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 766, 225 S.E.2d 263 (1976); Ingram v. State, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 23 Diciembre 2019
    ...reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Darden v. State , 271 Ga. 449, 451 (3), 519 S.E.2d 921 (1999) ; Anderson v. State , 245 Ga. 619, 623 (1), 266 S.E.2d 221 (1980).The evidence authorized a jury to find that deadly force was not reasonable. Although Ellison slapped Clark, McClure......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 5 Diciembre 1983
    ...This code section requires that a person's claim of self-defense be judged by the standard of the reasonable man. Anderson v. State, 245 Ga. 619(1), 266 S.E.2d 221 (1980). It is for the jury to determine whether, under the circumstances, the defendant claiming self-defense acted under the f......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 24 Agosto 2000
    ...443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2. Diaz v. State, 270 Ga. 421-422, 510 S.E.2d 529 (1999). 3. Anderson v. State, 245 Ga. 619, 623(1), 266 S.E.2d 221 (1980); accord Brown v. State, 242 Ga.App. 106, 107(1), 528 S.E.2d 868 (2000). 4. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mitc......
  • Gonzales v. State, A03A0362.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 22 Mayo 2003
    ...was necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself is a question for the jury. Anderson v. State, 245 Ga. 619, 623(1), 266 S.E.2d 221 (1980). When voluntary manslaughter is raised, the issue is whether the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt tha......
  • 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