Causey v. State
| Decision Date | 29 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59108,59108 |
| Parties | CAUSEY et al. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ronald G. Shedd, Rome, for appellants.
F. Larry Salmon, Dist. Atty., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants, Burl Eugene Causey and Burl Eugene Causey, Jr., along with Vickie Darlene McGinnis, were indicted for conspiring to commit murder. The indictment stated that appellants "did conspire one with the other to commit the offense of murder on the person of F. Larry Salmon and the said Burl Eugene Causey, Burl Eugene Causey, Jr. and Vickie Darlene McGinnis in furtherance of said conspiracy did commit the overt acts of paying to Charles L. Baylor, acting under the name of Bunny Eckert $500.00 to kill and murder the said F. Larry Salmon; furnishing to said Charles L. Baylor, acting under the name of Bunny Eckert a sawed-off shotgun for said purpose; advising said Charles L. Baylor, acting under the name of Bunny Eckert, of the location of the said F. Larry Salmon's residence and place of business; pointing out to said Charles L. Baylor, acting under the name of Bunny Eckert the identity of the said F. Larry Salmon; and advising said Charles L. Baylor, acting under the name of Bunny Eckert of possible escape routes after the said F. Larry Salmon was killed and murdered."
At the trial the evidence revealed that in June of 1978 Hugh Don Smith, a convicted felon, agreed to act as an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a department of the United States Treasury, in exchange for a possible sentence reduction. In mid-July appellant, Causey, Sr. met with Smith and during the course of their conversation Causey, Sr. expressed extreme anger at district attorney F. Larry Salmon. In general, Causey, Sr.'s animosity for Salmon stemmed from a number of past encounters members of the Causey family had with Salmon in his role as district attorney. In particular, Causey, Sr.'s son, Steve Jack, was incarcerated at the time of the aforestated meeting and Causey, Sr. believed that Salmon was directly responsible for Causey, Sr.'s inability to obtain the release of Steve Jack on bond. A couple of days later Smith again met with Causey, Sr. and at this second meeting, Causey, Sr. continued expressing animosity towards Salmon and stated that Salmon should be killed. Causey, Sr. further stated that he knew a "hit man" in Tennessee who was not a professional, but was inexpensive. In response to the aforesaid statement, Smith indicated that he knew a professional hit man in Texas, but that he would be expensive. Causey, Sr. requested Smith to contact the man in Texas and asked Smith if he would pay one-half of the fee. Smith agreed. On July 27th, Smith contacted a representative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and relayed the substance of his conversations with Causey, Sr. and it was arranged that Charlie Baylor, an undercover agent for the bureau, would pose as Bunny Eckert, a professional hit man from Texas and additional arrangements were made for electronic surveillance.
The evidence further revealed that Baylor met with Causey, Sr. and Smith on August 10th whereupon it was agreed that Baylor would kill Salmon on behalf of Causey, Sr. and Smith for a total fee of $8,000 with a down payment of $1,000. Smith and Causey, Sr. each paid Baylor $500 representing their respective shares of the down payment. Causey, Jr. showed Baylor the general vicinity near Salmon's house and pointed out various escape routes and rode with Baylor to pick up two shotguns from his (Causey, Jr.'s) stepsister. Causey, Jr. actually went into his stepsister's house and procured the aforesaid weapons.
The jury found appellants guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and returned a verdict of acquittal as to McGinnis. After the denial of their motion for new trial, appellants filed a notice of appeal and, in this court, enumerate eleven alleged errors by the trial court.
1. Appellants' Enumerations 1, 4 and 7 cite as error the denial of their motion for a new trial and the denial of their motions for a directed verdict of acquittal at the completion of the state's case and again at the conclusion of the evidence. Appellants contend that the motion for new trial should have been granted in that there was not sufficient evidence, produced by the state, and that the verdict and judgment were not supported by the evidence and were contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence.
A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict only where there is no conflict in the evidence, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom, demands a verdict of not guilty. Code Ann. § 27-1802 (Ga. L. 1971, pp. 460, 461). On appeal of the overruling of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal, the appellate court can consider all of the evidence in the case and this is true whether the denial of such motion occurs at the close of the state's case or at the conclusion of all evidence. Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 219 S.E.2d 743 (1975). While the jury can and must weigh and analyze the evidence, an appellate court is restricted to determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty. Davis v. State, 151 Ga.App. 222, 223, 259 S.E.2d 207 (1979); Kendrick v. State, 146 Ga.App. 513, 246 S.E.2d 505 (1978). The evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom did not demand a verdict of not guilty.
The question of the existence of a conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Hurt v. State, 239 Ga. 665, 238 S.E.2d 542 (1977); Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 223 S.E.2d 643 (1976). While the essential element of the charge is the common design or purpose between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, it need not appear that the parties met together either formally or informally or that they entered into a formal agreement. Neither is it essential that the conspirators formulated their unlawful objective either by words or writings. It is sufficient that two or more persons in any manner either expressly or tacitly came to a mutual understanding that they would accomplish the unlawful design. Walden v. State, 121 Ga.App. 142, 173 S.E.2d 110 (1970). The evidence here is clearly sufficient to support the verdict and our review of the record compels our conclusion that any rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence proof of the guilt of appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Green v. State, 152 Ga.App. 387, 262 S.E.2d 639 (1979).
2. In Enumeration 2 appellants allege that the court erred in overruling the general and special demurrers to the indictment, as amended. Appellants contend that the allegations of the indictment were insufficient in that the same did not charge appellants with an offense under the laws of this state and that said allegations were so vague and indefinite appellants could not properly prepare a defense to the charges contained therein. In particular, appellants allege the indictment is defective in that it neither sets forth the date of each overt act nor specifies which overt act was done by each of the appellants.
Code § 26-3201 () provides in part: "A person commits a conspiracy to commit a crime when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy . . ." The aforesaid Code section in conjunction with the substantive offense of murder, Code Ann. § 26-1101, defines a crime under the laws of this state. Orkin v. State, 236 Ga. 176, 223 S.E.2d 61 (1976).
"Every indictment . . . shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct, which states the offense in the terms and language of this Code, or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may easily be understood by the jury . . ." Code Ann. § 27-701. The indictment in this case clearly charges appellants with unlawfully conspiring one with the other to commit the offense of murder upon a named person. Furthermore, it sets forth the date of the charged offense and enumerates the overt acts done to effect the object of the alleged conspiracy. The indictment is not vague and ambiguous. It apprises the appellants of the charges against them with sufficient clarity to permit them to adequately prepare their defense and is sufficiently technical and correct so plain that the nature of the offense charged may easily be understood by the jury. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 215 S.E.2d 223 (1975).
In view of the fact that the indictment states that the charged offense occurred "on or about August 10, 1978" and in view of the fact that a reference to each of the overt acts alleged by the state is contained therein, the failure to specify the exact dates of each overt act does not render the indictment demurrable for vagueness. Callahan v. State, 148 Ga.App. 555, 251 S.E.2d 790 (1978). Similarly, the indictment is not insufficient because of its failure to specify which of the appellants did each overt act set forth therein. Each of the participants in a conspiracy is responsible for the acts of the others and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...and correct--so plain that the nature of the offense charged may easily be understood by the jury. [Cit.]" Causey v. State, 154 Ga.App. 76, 78-9, 267 S.E.2d 475 (1980). The fact that the subject indictments could have set forth additional specifics regarding the conspiracy--e.g., the locale......
-
State v. Frazier
...344 U.S. 824, 73 S.Ct. 24, 97 L.Ed. 642 (1952); People v. Walker, 150 Cal.App.2d 594, 310 P.2d 110 (1957). See also Causey v. State, 154 Ga.App. 76, 267 S.E.2d 475 (1980); State v. Fried, 92 N.M. 202, 585 P.2d 647 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M. 260, 586 P.2d 1089 (1978); Hampton v. State,......
-
Bennett v. State
...charged was not unrebutted and the evidence authorized the submission of the entrapment defense to the jury. Causey v. State, 154 Ga.App. 76, 80(4), 267 S.E.2d 475 (1980). The jury was instructed as to the defense of entrapment and there is evidence to support their verdict. Smith v. State,......
-
Carroll v. State
...it incidentally placed in issue the character of the defendant. Millis v. State, 196 Ga.App. 799(1), 397 S.E.2d 71; Causey v. State, 154 Ga.App. 76, 79(3), 267 S.E.2d 475. Judgment affirmed. POPE, C.J., BIRDSONG, BEASLEY, P.JJ., and ANDREWS, JOHNSON and BLACKBURN, JJ., concur. COOPER, J., d......