Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25116,25116 |
| Citation | 168 S.E.2d 158,225 Ga. 310 |
| Parties | Barbara Jean CARTER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Clifford Johnson, Douglasville, for appellant.
Eldridge W. Fleming, Dist. Atty., Hogansville, Fred A. Gilbert, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry H. Evans, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On September 10, 1968, the appellant was placed on trial for murder in the Superior Court of Coweta County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant based her defense on the general ground of insanity. She appeals from the verdict on the ground that the verdict is contrary to both the law and the evidence. More particularly, she urges that her motion for a new trial should have been granted because the defense introduced evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of sanity, and there was no rebuttal evidence offered by the State. Appellant cites, in support of her contention, the case of Handspike v. State, 203 Ga. 115, 45 S.E.2d 662.
Appellant has misconstrued the Handspike opinion, which was written by Mr. Justice Head. Subsequently, in the case of Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567, 63 S.E.2d 394, a full bench decision, Mr. Justice Head clearly defined the limits which apply to the Handspike case. The Boyd opinion pointed out that in Handspike, a jury had previously found the defendant insane, and there was no subsequent adjudication that he had been restored to sanity. Code § 38-118 states that a mental condition, once proved to exist, is presumed to continue. Thus, in Handspike, the verdict of guilty was reversed because the State had failed to introduce any evidence to overcome the presumption established by the prior adjudication of insanity.
In the instant case, as well as the Boyd case, there was no prior adjudication of insanity, so that the presumption existing at the time of the trial was one of sanity, rather than insanity.
In a subsequent full bench decision, this court has clearly adopted the view set out in the Boyd case: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potts v. State
...the presumption of sanity with which the accused entered his trial. Durham v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; Carter v. State,225 Ga. 310, 311, 168 S.E.2d 158 (1969). In the instant case, the jury rejected appellant's plea, and in light of the evidence, they were authorized to do 14.......
-
Moses v. State
...or expert witnesses as to the question of sanity and they may rely on the basic presumption existing under our law. Carter v. State, 225 Ga. 310, 168 S.E.2d 158 (1969); Johnson v. State, supra. The jury is free to reject expert testimony as to sanity and may find an accused sane even withou......
-
Johnson v. State
...the testimony of expert (and lay) witnesses as to the sanity of the accused and rely on the presumption of sanity.' Carter v. State, 225 Ga. 310, 311, 168 S.E.2d 158, 159. Accord, Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567, 63 S.E.2d Defendant's reliance on Handspike v. State, 203 Ga. 115, 45 S.E.2d 662 is......
-
Durham v. State
...of appellant's sanity. Georgia law presumes the sanity of an accused. Code Ann. § 26-606 (Ga.L.1968, p. 1270); Carter v. State, 225 Ga. 310, 168 S.E.2d 158 (1969). Alternatively, the law presumes the continued existence of a mental state once proved to exist. Code § 38-118; Boyd v. State, 2......