Dix v. State, 35052
| Citation | 260 S.E.2d 863,244 Ga. 464 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 35052,35052 |
| Parties | DIX v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Millard C. Farmer, Jr., Newnan, August F. Siemon, Waycross, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Clifford A. Sticher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Horace Dix appeals from the denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial. His conviction and death sentence for the murder of Dixie Jordan were affirmed in Dix v. State, 238 Ga. 209, 232 S.E.2d 47 (1977), to which reference should be made for a full fact statement.
His first enumeration of error contends that he was entitled to a hearing to determine his mental competence to stand trial. More specifically, he contends that his inability to recall the events surrounding the killing precluded him from assisting his counsel in his defense during both the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases of his trial. He further contends that his mental condition precluded a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a hearing on that issue. Dix next asserts that the trial court erred in denying his extraordinary motion for new trial on the procedural ground that the evidence of his two psychiatrists presented during the hearing on the motion was not newly-discovered. His third enumeration of error is based upon Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).
The state contends that the testimony of Dix's two psychiatrists during the hearing on the extraordinary motion was in no respect newly-discovered; rather, that this evidence merely was cumulative of other evidence as to Dix's mental condition that was known to Dix's retained counsel during the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases of his trial and used by his legal counsel as the basis for contentions that Dix was not legally responsible for his actions at the time of the offense. This court most carefully has reviewed this testimony and agrees with the state that Dix could have used these witnesses during his trial, and, further, that the substance of their testimony merely is cumulative of the findings of the psychiatrists of the Forensic Services Division of Central State Hospital who examined Dix thoroughly over a period of several days. Dix's two psychiatrists, both of whom spoke with him only briefly, agreed with the state's psychiatrists as to the nature of Dix's mental condition, albeit they preferred to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dix v. Newsome
...Later, on October 16, 1979, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the extraordinary motion for a new trial. Dix v. State, 244 Ga. 464, 260 S.E.2d 863 (1979). Following this adverse decision, Dix petitioned the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. The writ was denie......
- Somers v. Avant
-
Grant v. State
...justify it to be considered as an extraordinary motion for new trial. See Goodwin v. State, 240 Ga. 605, 242 S.E.2d 119; Dix v. State, 244 Ga. 464, 260 S.E.2d 863; Blake v. State, 244 Ga. 466, 260 S.E.2d 876; Gaddis v. State, 245 Ga. 200, 265 S.E.2d 275; Birt v. Hopper, 245 Ga. 221, 265 S.E......
-
Gaddis v. State, 35772
...for consideration by extraordinary motion for a new trial. Goodwin v. State, 240 Ga. 605, 242 S.E.2d 119 (1978); Dix v. State, 244 Ga. 464, 260 S.E.2d 863 (1979); Blake v. State, 244 Ga. 466, 260 S.E.2d 876 (1979); Douthit v. State, 244 Ga. 471, 260 S.E.2d 875 (1979). As stated in Ga. Prac.......