Baker v. State, 40107
| Decision Date | 21 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 40107,40107 |
| Citation | 251 Ga. 464,306 S.E.2d 917 |
| Parties | BAKER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael S. Bennett, Bennett, Wisenbaker & Bennett, Valdosta (court-appointed), for Richard Lamar "Dickey" Baker.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Valdosta, James E. Hardy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In November, 1981, Richard Lamar Baker was convicted of the murder of his father and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal we remanded the case to determine whether the appellant was competent to stand trial at the time of his trial for murder. Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187, 297 S.E.2d 9 (1982). We held that "if the appellant fails by a preponderance of the evidence to prove incompetence at the time of his [murder] trial, the verdict of guilty shall stand." 250 Ga. at 193, 297 S.E.2d 9.
Following a trial on this issue, the jury rejected appellant's special plea of insanity. We affirm.
(1) Appellant complains that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for individual, sequestered voir dire. The record shows that appellant stated he did not wish to conduct individual voir dire unless the jurors were sequestered. Further, the voir dire was not transcribed, making it impossible for us to evaluate appellant's contention that his ability to select a jury was "chilled" by the trial court's ruling. We find appellant has not met his burden of showing the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow individual sequestered voir dire. Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454, 291 S.E.2d 489 (1982); Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700, 198 S.E.2d 865 (1973).
(2) Appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence an unsigned document, produced by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation, indicating that, on May 6, 1982, appellant "condoned anti-social acts" and had a "distorted" concept of reality. Records which contain diagnostic opinions of third parties not before the court are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Kesler v. State, 249 Ga. 462, 291 S.E.2d 497 (1982); Moody v. State, 244 Ga. 247, 260 S.E.2d 11 (1979); OCGA § 24-3-14 (Code Ann. § 38-711).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcolm v. State
...of third parties who are not before the court are not admissible under that exception to the hearsay rule. Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 465(2), 306 S.E.2d 917 (1983); Hurt v. State, 239 Ga. 665, 673(10), 238 S.E.2d 542 (1977). Accordingly, if the laboratory reports at issue in the instant c......
-
Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Ga. Inc v. Shirley
...opinions of persons not before the court may not be admissible under the business records exception, see, e.g., Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 464(2), 306 S.E.2d 917 (1983), the records in this case were introduced only for the limited purposes of showing whether Shirley had been admitted to ......
-
McDuffie v. State, A93A1080
...of third parties not before the court are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule." Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 306 S.E.2d 917 (1983). Accord Hurt v. State, 239 Ga. 665(10), 238 S.E.2d 542 (1977). 5. Finally, we reject defendant's argument that the trial cou......
-
Glanton v. State, s. 77164
...at a tremendous disadvantage in reviewing a record for error, when the basis for the claim of error is not recorded. See Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 306 S.E.2d 917. In the instant case, error is asserted on the basis of peremptory challenges exercised by the State and voir dire was not rec......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...267 Ga. at 271, 476 S.E.2d at 725. 20. 266 Ga. 561, 468 S.E.2d 757 (1996). 21. Id. at 565, 468 S.E.2d at 761. 22. Id. 23. Baker v. State, 251 Ga. 464, 465, 306 S.E.2d 917, 918 (1983). 24. 266 Ga. at 565, 468 S.E.2d at 761. 25. Id. 26. In last year's survey, the author discussed the court of......