Brown v. State, 43867

Decision Date13 November 1986
Docket NumberNo. 43867,43867
CitationBrown v. State, 349 S.E.2d 738, 256 Ga. 439 (Ga. 1986)
PartiesBROWN v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

W. Dennis Mullis, Cochran, for Curtis Brown.

James L. Wiggins, Dist. Atty., James E. Turk, Asst. Dist. Atty., Eastman, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WELTNER, Justice.

Curtis Brown was convicted of the murder of Donna West by shooting and killing her with a rifle. 1 The evidence showed that Brown stood outside West's home with a loaded rifle in his hand, that he saw West through one of the windows of her trailer, that he pointed his rifle at her, and that he pulled the trigger. Two days after the killing, law enforcement agents called on Brown to determine if he had seen or heard anything unusual on the night West was killed. Brown reported that he had not come home until after dark and the ambulance had already gone past his home by the time he returned. Brown asked the officers what kind of gun had been used to shoot West, and he also stated that he had heard that a shoe print had been found near the scene and wanted to know if this were true. The officers then asked Brown to let them see the soles of the boots he was wearing. Upon finding a marked similarity between Brown's soles and prints left near the trailer, the officers asked if Brown owned a rifle. He produced a .22 caliber rifle. Brown agreed to accompany the officers to the jail, and allowed the officers to take possession of his rifle. Ballistics tests connected Brown's rifle with the fatal projectile.

1. The evidence meets the test of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. The indictment charged Brown with malice murder, felony murder, and peeping tom. The verdict found him guilty of felony murder and peeping tom. Unless there are separate victims, a defendant may not be convicted of both felony murder and the underlying felony. Woods v. State, 233 Ga. 495, 212 S.E.2d 322 (1975). See also Stitt v. State, 256 Ga. 155, 345 S.E.2d 578 (1986); Walker v. State, 254 Ga. 149, 327 S.E.2d 475 (1985). Accordingly, the conviction of the offense of peeping tom is vacated.

3. Prior to trial, the trial court held a Jackson v. Denno hearing to determine whether certain admissions made by Brown were coerced by law enforcement officials. During the trial Brown testified that he had been threatened and "cussed" at by law enforcement officers. The officers denied any such treatment, and the trial court admitted Brown's statements. Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court's finding as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of statements will be upheld on appeal. Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89(2), 263 S.E.2d 131 (1980), Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101, 326 S.E.2d 748 (1985)....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Lolley v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1989
    ...behavior. The trial court found otherwise. That finding is not clearly erroneous, and will not be disturbed on appeal. Brown v. State, 256 Ga. 439, 349 S.E.2d 738 (1986). 4. Lolley maintains that the trial court erred in refusing his request to charge the provisions of OCGA § 16-5-3(a) 3 as......
  • Robinson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1987
    ...convicted both of the underlying felony and of felony murder." Stitt v. State, 256 Ga. 155, 158, 345 S.E.2d 578 (1986); Brown v. State, 256 Ga. 439, 349 S.E.2d 738 (1986). Therefore, if the jury had convicted appellant of both felony murder and cruelty to children, the cruelty to children c......
  • Baldwin v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1988
    ...court's factual determination on such an issue will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 104, 326 S.E.2d 748; Brown v. State, 256 Ga. 439, 440(3), 349 S.E.2d 738 (1986). We conclude that the trial court's finding that Baldwin made no request for an attorney is supported by the record ......
  • Milledge v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1996
    ...are separate victims, a defendant may not be convicted of both felony murder and the underlying felony. [Cits.]" Brown v. State, 256 Ga. 439(2), 349 S.E.2d 738 (1986). In the indictment upon which Milledge was being tried, the separate aggravated assault count alleged his commission of the ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Georgia Local Government Law: Court Resolution of County Government Disagreements - Paul Vignos
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 46-1, September 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...action of the county governing authority." Ga. Const, art. LX, Sec. 1, para. 3 (b) (1976). 75. 1965 Ga. Laws 2667. 76. 256 Ga. at 498, 349 S.E.2d at 738. 77. 256 Ga. at 498, 349 S.E.2d at 738 (Clark, J., dissenting) (citing Beazley v. DeKalb County, 210 Ga. 41, 77 S.E.2d 740 (1953) (Beazley......