Chapman v. State, 44004
| Decision Date | 09 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 44004,44004 |
| Citation | 354 S.E.2d 149,257 Ga. 19 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
David R. Osborne, Atlanta, for Frank Chapman.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Richard E. Hicks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Frank Chapman was convicted of the shotgun murder of his wife, Sara Chapman, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 Her body, clad in a nightgown, was found in a river on January 15, 1986. She had been missing for about a month.
Equilla Taylor stayed at the Chapman residence on an irregular basis. On December 19, 1985, she was at Chapman's house and was expecting the birth of a child. She went to sleep about 6:00 P.M., later to awake and hear Frank and Sara Chapman's voices as they entered the house. At 12:30 A.M. she arose from her bed and walked down the hallway. Taylor did not see Frank Chapman at that time, the door to his study being closed, but she saw Sara Chapman, who was in her bedroom listening to religious tapes. Taylor returned to her room and closed her door. Shortly thereafter she heard Frank Chapman leave his study, walk toward the bedroom, and speak to Sara Chapman, who answered him. Taylor then heard a gunshot. Frightened, she remained in her room. She heard the sound of something being dragged along the floor, and then heard the sound of an automobile engine starting. About two hours later she heard Frank Chapman return, and heard the noises produced by his efforts to clean portions of his house. He left the home about 7:30 A.M. Taylor departed the Chapman home shortly thereafter and did not return. Shortly after her child was born, Taylor told police of the events that had taken place at the Chapman house.
Sara Chapman's children became concerned when she failed to follow her regular routine, and when they could not locate her. The telephone at Frank Chapman's house was not answered, and it was not until December 23, 1985, that one of her children was able to reach Chapman at work. On that date, he told one of her children he last saw his wife on the evening of the 19th of December at 11:00 P.M., when she was preparing to go to church. One of Sara Chapman's children filed a missing person's report. Chapman gave the use of Sara Chapman's automobile to Mark Redding, Sara Chapman's son. With Redding's permission, the police searched the automobile and found blood stains. Chapman's house was searched on two occasions, the first time with his consent, and the second time with a search warrant. These searches produced two shotgun shells, lead fragments, a woman's wig, Sara Chapman's dentures, and samples of suspected human blood. The blood tests indicated that the samples could have been Sara Chapmen's blood. An autopsy determined that Sara Chapmen died as the result one shotgun wound.
1. The evidence in this case is sufficient under the test of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560 (1979).
2. The written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. State
...to unsworn testimony waives the issue for appeal. See Brown v. State, 290 Ga. 321, 322(4), 720 S.E.2d 617 (2012) ; Chapman v. State, 257 Ga. 19, 20(3), 354 S.E.2d 149 (1987) ; Sweeting v. State, 291 Ga.App. 693, 694, 662 S.E.2d 785 (2008) ; Hilson v. State, 204 Ga.App. 200, 203(1), 418 S.E.......
-
Bright v. State
...oath in effect when she promised to tell the court the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. See Chapman v. State, 257 Ga. 19, 20 (3), 354 S.E.2d 149 (1987); cf. Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 511, 277 S.E.2d 53 4. Appellant claims error in the court's failing, contrary to the Sixth A......
-
Hilson v. State, A92A0110
...constitute[s] a waiver of the requirements of an oath. [Cits.]" Belcher, supra 173 Ga.App. at 510, 326 S.E.2d 857; Chapman v. State, 257 Ga. 19, 20(3), 354 S.E.2d 149 (1987). Under these circumstances, we find no reversible 2. Appellant argues that insofar as OCGA § 24-9-5 exempts children ......
- Hendrick v. State, 43997