Cook v. State
Decision Date | 20 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A90A1822,A90A1822 |
Citation | 199 Ga.App. 14,404 S.E.2d 128 |
Parties | COOK v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Milton F. Gardner, Jr., Milledgeville, for appellant.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Al C. Martinez, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and this appeal followed the denial of his motion for new trial. Held:
1. Defendant first contends the trial court erred in denying his motion under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, arguing that the State used its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.
"If the defendant can establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's exercise of his peremptory challenges, the prosecutor must explain his exercise of peremptory challenges, and demonstrate that racially neutral criteria prompted the exercise of his peremptory challenges." Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325(2), 357 S.E.2d 792.
The record in the case sub judice shows that defendant is black and that the State used its ten peremptory challenges to exclude prospective black jurors. The State's attorney explained that he struck two prospective jurors because they have close relatives who have been subjects of criminal prosecutions. The State's attorney explained that the remaining eight strikes were used to exclude jurors who had recently served on criminal juries which returned verdicts of not guilty. Defendant argues that these explanations are unbelievable because the State's attorney asked only one question during voir dire and because two prospective white jurors, who had recently served on an acquitting criminal jury, were not struck by the State.
" Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300(1), 381 S.E.2d 439.
In the case sub judice, we find no abuse in the trial court's determination that the State's explanations were credible and that the State's reasons for excluding the ten prospective black jurors were not aimed at purposeful discrimination. See Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300(1), 381 S.E.2d 439, supra. Consequently, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion under Batson v. Kentucky, supra, was not erroneous.
2. Next, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on self-defense, arguing that his "testimony established a prima facie case of self defense." This argument is not supported by the record.
Defendant was charged with aggravated assault in that he did "make an assault upon the [victim] with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife." The victim testified that defendant attacked him and cut him on the hand and head with a "little pocketknife." Defendant testified that the victim started the fight and that he did not possess a knife during the altercation. Defendant explained on cross-examination that he "couldn't tell [how the victim was stabbed, but speculated that the victim] might have cut hisself (sic) or ... might have had a knife or something...." This testimony does not authorize a finding that defendant used a knife against the victim in self-defense. See Wilkerson v. State, 183 Ga.App. 26, 28(3), 357 S.E.2d 814. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to give a charge on self-defense.
3. In his third enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding testimony that the victim "had beaten him up on two previous occasions; one a little more than a month before the alleged stabbing."
A victim's prior acts of violence against a defendant are relevant in weighing the truth of a defendant's claim of justification. Milton v. State, 245 Ga. 20, 26, 262 S.E.2d 789. However, (Emphasis supplied.) Hagans v. State, 187 Ga.App. 216, 217(1), 369 S.E.2d 536.
In the case sub judice, defendant's testimony authorized a finding that the victim was the aggressor and that the victim was assailing defendant, but there was no evidence that defendant honestly sought to defend himself with a knife during the fight. Defendant simply testified that he did not then have a knife and that he did not stab the victim. Consequently, since justification was not a defense to the stabbing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of the victim's prior violent acts against defendant.
4. In his fourth enumeration, defendant contends the trial court "erred in failing to exclude from evidence an in custody statement allegedly made by [him] when all material parts of the statement were not served on the defendant ten days prior to trial as required by O.C.G.A. [s] 17-7-210."
At trial, a police officer testified that defendant's custodial "statement [included an admission] that he was hiding in the bushes ..." before he stabbed the victim. Defense counsel objected and argued that this testimony is materially different from the statement the State gave him pursuant to defendant's OCGA § 17-7-210 demand. More specifically, defense counsel stated that the State responded to defendant's demand as follows:
" "
The State's attorney affirmed in open court that the above statement was "the statement [he] served on [defense counsel]" and argued that it was not necessary to notify defendant that the custodial statement included an admission by defendant that he "hid in the bushes and when the victim came by, he'd jumped on him" because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dixon v. The State
...at 98-99, 469 S.E.2d 264. 32. See id. at 99, 469 S.E.2d 264 (juror had a cousin who was prosecuted for murder); Cook v. State, 199 Ga.App. 14, 15(1), 404 S.E.2d 128 (1991) (jurors had close relatives who had been subjects of criminal prosecutions); Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300(1), 381 S......
-
Moon v. State
...has been made by the defendant." ' (Emphasis supplied.) Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1) (299 SE2d 735)." Cook v. State, 199 Ga.App. 14, 16(4), 17, 404 S.E.2d 128. In the case sub judice, there is no dispute that defendant filed a timely request for copies of any statement he made while ......
-
Rogers v. State
...... a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Cook v. State, 199 Ga.App. 14, 15(1), 404 S.E.2d 128 (1991). See Randolph v. State, 203 Ga.App. 115(3), 416 S.E.2d 117 5. During his closing argument the prosecutor referred to......
-
Mathis v. State, A92A0194
...82(2), 406 S.E.2d 574. One of the prospective jurors' grandson was being prosecuted for a criminal offense. See Cook v. State, 199 Ga.App. 14(1), 15, 404 S.E.2d 128. The final prospective black juror was stricken based on information received by the prosecutor from law enforcement officers ......