Carey v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 44274,44274 |
| Citation | 356 S.E.2d 507,257 Ga. 134 |
| Parties | Margaret CAREY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Harold N. Wollstein, Rome, for Margaret Louise Carey.
Stephen L. Lanier, Dist. Atty., Fred R. Simpson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Margaret Carey was indicted for murder in Floyd County for the stabbing death of Tyrone Jackson who lived with Ms. Carey and her son. The jury was instructed on the issues of murder, voluntary manslaughter and justification; they convicted her of murder for which she received a sentence of life in prison. On appeal she asserts error in that an incorrect transcription of her taped statement was put before the jury, that the court erred in admitting the results of a blood alcohol test, and that due to her intoxication the court erred in finding her statements to police were voluntary. We affirm.
1. The facts show that Ms. Carey and the victim had been drinking on the day of the homicide and that the victim died from stab wounds inflicted by Ms. Carey. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. The police arrived on the scene and took Ms. Carey to the station at around 7:30 PM. She was given Miranda warnings and at approximately 10:20 gave a statement denying that she stabbed Tyrone. At approximately 12:45 she gave a statement admitting the stabbing and claiming self-defense. Prior to trial the state prepared transcripts of these statements from an audio tape. These transcripts were furnished to the defense before trial.
During the trial these tapes were played to the jury. In connection with the playing of the tapes the state submitted written transcripts of the contents which were given to the jury to aid them in following the tape. After the tape was played, the copies of the transcripts were taken from the jury. Prior to playing the tapes the court instructed the jury that the copies were merely to aid them in considering the evidence of the statements which was the tapes themselves.
The appellant filed an amended motion for new trial and raised the issue made here, that the written transcript materially altered the testimony on the tape of the statement where she admitted the stabbing. The basis of this motion was that the version of the statement as understood and recorded by the court reporter conflicts with the version transcribed by the state prior to trial, and that the reporter's version is more consistent with her defense of self-defense.
The transcript provided to the jury was as follows:
MS. CAREY: (Emphasis supplied)
The same tape recorded statement was taken down by the court reporter as follows:
MS. CAREY: (Emphasis supplied)
The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing on the amended motion for new trial where the tape was played again and testimony was given. The court entered an order overruling the motion. The court stated that he had listened to the tape again and followed the two different transcripts; it was his "impression" that the transcript offered at the trial was correct. He concluded that whatever the tape does in fact say, the issue was properly left for the jury to determine.
It is not error to allow the jury to have a written copy of a tape recorded statement when a proper foundation has been made. See Cobb v. State, 244 Ga. 344 (14), 260 S.E.2d 60 (1979); Gaston v. State, 180 Ga.App. 470, 349 S.E.2d 526 (1986). We find no error in this case. The transcripts were provided to the defense prior to trial. During the playing of the tapes no objection was made to the content of the words in the transcript, and the jury was instructed that only the tapes were evidence.
3. Prior to trial the defense filed a request for copies of scientific reports pursuant to OCGA 17-7-211. Blood alcohol tests had been performed on the appellant and the victim and were being processed at the state crime lab. The trial began on September 29, 1986. The district attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Speed v. State
...265 Ga. 622, 622-26(2), 458 S.E.2d 643 (1995); Jackson v. State, 261 Ga. 734, 735(2), 410 S.E.2d 115 (1991). 20. Carey v. State, 257 Ga. 134, 135(2), 356 S.E.2d 507 (1987). 21. See Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 495(1), 422 S.E.2d 188 (1992) (alleged errors not raised at trial will not be h......
-
Harris v. State
...the transcript to defense counsel before trial, and the sufficiency of its authentication was not challenged below. Carey v. State, 257 Ga. 134, 135(2), 356 S.E.2d 507 (1987). Harris raised only a general objection to the use of the transcript, asserting that the jury should hear only the t......
-
King v. State, No. A03A0422
...664 (1980); see Cronan v. State, 236 Ga.App. 374, 377(3), 511 S.E.2d 899 (1999). 17. OCGA § 17-16-1 et seq. 18. See Carey v. State, 257 Ga. 134, 135(3), 356 S.E.2d 507 (1987). 19. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), holds that it violates the right o......
-
Badische Corp. v. Caylor
... ... rule advocated by the plaintiffs and the narrow privity rule which remains the law in some states and which was formerly the law in this state. See Howard v. Dun & Bradstreet, 136 Ga.App. 221, 220 S.E.2d 702 (1975). See, e.g., Haddon View Investment Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 436 N.E.2d ... ...