Chandle v. State, 27825
| Decision Date | 10 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27825,27825 |
| Citation | 198 S.E.2d 289,230 Ga. 574 |
| Parties | John Lee CHANDLE, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
George L. Hoyt, Alma, for appellant.
Dewey Hayes, Dist. Atty., Douglas Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Thomas W. Green, Asst. Attys. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
John Lee Chandle, Jr., was convicted of the murder of his wife Easter Rose Chandle and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals to this court. Held:
1. The appellant contends that the State did not prove malice and for this reason the conviction of murder was unauthorized by the evidence. We do not agree. Susie Brinson testified that she, her husband, the defendant and the victim had been at the 'juke hall' drinking. Later they went to the defendant's home and about 11:00 p.m. she and her husband went home across the street. The victim came to her home about 11:35 p.m. to borrow a book. After the witness and her husband had gone to sleep, the defendant came to their home and awakened them by banging on the door. He told them that he had shot his wife and that she was dead. He did not give any excuse or justification for the shooting. The defendant left their home to get an ambulance. The victim was still alive and was taken to the hospital.
The sheriff was called to the hospital about 2:00 a.m. The hospital personnel were trying to ascertain why the victim's head was bleeding; the defendant was among the people at the hospital. No one there seemed to know why the victim's head was bleeding. Someone finally said that the victim had been shot. The defendant then said he had shot her. The defendant told the sheriff that he was cleaning or fixing an old rifle and the bullet discharged and hit the victim. The defendant brought the rifle to the sheriff. The rifle was old, rusty and could not be fired because it did not have a firing pin or hammer. Later that same day the defendant told the sheriff that he shot his wife with a .22 caliber pistol and had thrown it into a wooded area near his house. He showed them the area where he said he had thrown it but the pistol was never found. The victim died of the gunshot wound about a week later. The officers did not talk to her because of her physical condition.
An agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation testified that the defendant told him that he had previously told the sheriff he had killed the victim whth his rifle but he knew that the rifle would not fire; that he had actually killed her with a small caliber .22 revolver; that he thought he had taken all the cartridges out of the pistol, that he was pointing it toward her, and that he was snapping it when it fired.
The defendant in his unsworn statement said that he had taken the pistol with him fishing, that he thought he had removed all the bullets from it, that he was 'snapping on it,' that it went off and killed the victim, and that he was sorry he did it.
'To kill by using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to produce death, will raise a presumption of intention to kill.' Moon v. State, 68 Ga. 687(7); Barbee v. State, 175 Ga. 307, 165 S.E. 232; Plummer v. State, 200 Ga. 641(1), 38 S.E.2d 411; Carrigan v. State, 206 Ga. 707, 58 S.E.2d 407; Fisher v. State, 228 Ga. 100(2), 184 S.E.2d 156.
Furthermore, the admission of the defendant to Susie Brinson did not show any excuse or justification for the shooting. The evidence is sufficient to support the murder conviction.
2. The appellant contends that the court erred in admitting the testimony of the GBI agent concerning his 'confession.' He argues that the agent was confused about the statement given to him and that he could not decide whether the appellant told him that he was pointing the pistol at the victim or holding it towards the victim. However, the record shows that the witness maintained that the appellant had used either the word 'pointing' or 'towards' the deceased and the jury was authorized to find that he was pointing the pistol at or towards the victim.
3. The appellant contends that the court erred in charging the jury that accident is an affirmative defense and in placing the burden upon the defendant to show accident by a preponderance of the evidence.
'An affirmative defense is one that admits the doing of the act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holloway v. McElroy
...of by Holloway are clearly not erroneous. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574, 198 S.E.2d 289 (1973). The trial court charged that the defendant had no burden of proving anything until the state has "shown to a moral and r......
-
Blake v. Zant
..."opposition" can support an inference of malice. See, e. g., Young v. The State, 243 Ga. 546, 255 S.E.2d 20 (1979); Chandle v. The State, 230 Ga. 574, 198 S.E.2d 289 (1973). In short, there is basis in the testimony of the petitioner at trial and Mr. Pierce thereafter as well as examination......
-
McClure v. State, S18G1599
...the defendant need not call any; but if not, then the defendant must call witnesses, and make out his defense by proof." Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574, 576 (3), 198 S.E.2d 289 (1973), quoting Crawford v. State , 12 Ga. 142, 149 (5) (1852) (other citations omitted). In other words, to raise ......
-
State v. Hankerson
...evidence when that issue is properly presented the following seven jurisdictions would be adversely affected: Georgia, Chandle v. State, 230 Ga. 574, 198 S.E.2d 289 (1973); See also Henderson v. State, 234 Ga. 827, 218 S.E.2d 612 (1975) (citing Mullaney); Ohio, State v. Poole, 33 Ohio St.2d......