Bentley v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. S92A1408,S92A1408 |
| Citation | 426 S.E.2d 364,262 Ga. 801 |
| Parties | BENTLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mark J. Nathan, Savannah, for Bentley.
Spencer Lawton, Dist. Atty., Savannah, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., C.A. Benjamin Woolf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
Jon C. Hope, Asst. Dist. Atty., Savannah.
Joshua Lee Bentley was convicted of the murder of Samuel S. Dawson and of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 1 Bentley was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to a consecutive five year probated term for the possession charge. He appeals and we affirm.
1. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Bentley guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Bentley contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for several different reasons. 2 We have thoroughly reviewed each reason asserted as well as the transcript of the hearing on Bentley's motion for new trial wherein the effectiveness issue was developed and argued to the trial court. Having done so, we conclude that the conduct about which Bentley now complains was a series of strategic and tactical decisions made by trial counsel. The record is also clear as to the fact that these decisions were made only after trial counsel conducted a thorough investigation and preparation of the case for trial. Bentley has not demonstrated that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment in handling the case and, thus, there is no merit to this enumeration. Ferrell v. State, 261 Ga. 115, 120, 401 S.E.2d 741 (1991). See also Solomon v. State, 247 Ga. 27(1), 277 S.E.2d 1 (1981).
3. In his final enumeration of error, Bentley argues that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from introducing evidence of the victim's general character for violence. The state filed a motion in limine seeking to have the trial court prohibit the introduction of evidence concerning specific prior acts of violence by the victim. 3 In arguments concerning that motion, there was also discussion and argument concerning evidence of the victim's general character or reputation for violence. The trial court held:
If the evidence develops to the point where you think it [evidence concerning the victim's general reputation for violence] should be admitted, ask me to excuse the jury before you start questioning on that and I'll take a look at the situation and make a ruling on that basis.
Our law is clear that evidence as to the victim's general reputation for violence is admissible only after "a prima facie showing that the victim was the aggressor, that the victim assaulted the defendant, and that the defendant was honestly trying to defend himself." Chapman v. State, 258 Ga. 214, 215, 367 S.E.2d 541 (1988). Accordingly, the trial court's preliminary ruling was correct. During the presentation of its case-in-chief, the defense did not follow up on that preliminary ruling by seeking to introduce evidence as to the victim's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...Martin v. State, 268 Ga. 682, 686(10), 492 S.E.2d 225 (1997). 57. See Fairclough, supra at 605-606, 581 S.E.2d 3; Bentley v. State, 262 Ga. 801(2), 426 S.E.2d 364 (1993). 58. Braithwaite v. State, 275 Ga. 884, 885(2)(b), 572 S.E.2d 612 (2002) (a golden rule argument is one that, regardless ......
-
Martin v. State
...did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 43(2), 472 S.E.2d 683 (1996); Bentley v. State, 262 Ga. 801(2), 426 S.E.2d 364 (1993). Judgments All the Justices concur, except FLETCHER, P.J., who concurs specially. FLETCHER, Presiding Justice, special......
-
Stack-Thorpe v. State
...or proffer the testimony she claims was improperly excluded, there is nothing for this Court to review. See Bentley v. State, 262 Ga. 801, 802(3), 426 S.E.2d 364 (1993) (after the trial court properly ruled that the defendant could not pursue a line of questioning until he produced certain ......
- Head v. State