Dunn v. State, A99A1727.
| Decision Date | 29 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1727.,A99A1727. |
| Citation | 530 S.E.2d 236,242 Ga. App. 525 |
| Parties | DUNN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stanley C. House, Augusta, for appellant.
Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Wanda Dunn was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated battery, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. She appeals, contending primarily that the trial court erred in excluding testimony of prior difficulties between Dunn and one of the alleged victims. We affirm.
Lewis testified that, on the night of June 24, 1995, she and Katrina Emmanuel were driving in a gray Cadillac when they saw Dunn, in a burgundy Oldsmobile, talking with another woman. According to Lewis, Dunn had previously threatened to shoot Lewis' brother. After Dunn started yelling out of her car window, Lewis got out of her car and said, Lewis said that Dunn then responded, "[Y]ou just wait right here, bitch, I'll be right back." Dunn claimed that Lewis pulled a gun from her car during this encounter, but both Lewis and Emmanuel denied that Lewis had a gun.1 Lewis then left and picked up her one-year-old daughter, Courtney. Dunn testified that she went home to retrieve a gun because she was scared that she might see Lewis again.
Lewis and Emmanuel testified that, after picking up Courtney, they were driving on Nellieville Road when they saw Dunn in her car at a stop sign. According to Lewis, Dunn pulled behind them and pointed a gun out the window. When Dunn tried to pull up to the side of Lewis' car, Lewis tried to run her off the road so that she could not shoot into the car. Lewis then sped up to try to get away, at which time she heard Dunn fire a shot. Dunn fired a second shot as Lewis was passing a car in front of her at a stop sign. Lewis turned left onto Fifteenth Avenue and got out of the car along with Emmanuel and Courtney. Dunn fired a third shot and then drove away. Although none of the shots hit Lewis' car, one of the bullets struck a fourteen-year-old bystander in the eye while she was sitting in a car several hundred feet away, resulting in the loss of the eye.
Dunn testified at trial and gave a different version of events. She testified that, after she went home to get her gun, Lewis pulled in front of her at a stop sign. Dunn said that she tried to pass Lewis' car but that Lewis "just started stopping [and] swerving ... trying to keep me from going around her." Dunn said Lewis went around another car at a stop sign and parked beside a building. Dunn stopped at the stop sign and said, "[B]itch, why you trying to hit my car?" According to Dunn, Lewis then reached under her car seat. Dunn said she thought Lewis "was going to pull the pistol out but I didn't even give her the chance to." Dunn pulled her own pistol out and fired a shot. She claimed that she fired only one shot and that the pistol would not fire when she tried a second shot.
Officer Kenneth Booze testified that he interviewed Dunn after the shooting. Dunn admitted to Booze that she had fired at Lewis' car but claimed she did so in self-defense. When Booze asked Dunn what happened to the gun, she told him that she had given it to a friend to hide. They located this friend, and he showed Booze and Dunn where he had hidden the gun. Dunn told Booze that this was the gun she had used in the shooting. The gun, a Burser .380 caliber automatic pistol, was introduced into evidence at trial, and Dunn's attorney stipulated that the bullet that struck the bystander was fired from this weapon.
1. In several enumerations, Dunn contends that the trial court improperly ruled that she could not present evidence of or mention in opening statements an altercation between Dunn and Lewis the night before the shooting, during which Lewis threatened Dunn and was seen to place a gun under the seat of her car. Dunn argues that this evidence would have supported her defense of justification.2 However, although the trial court ruled that such evidence was inadmissible and prevented Dunn's attorney from mentioning it during opening statements, Dunn was in fact able to introduce such evidence during the trial. Several defense witnesses testified that, the night before the shooting, Lewis drove to Dunn's house and repeatedly threatened her. Among other things, the witnesses testified that Lewis repeatedly said, "I'm going to F you up, bitch," and "I've got something for you." Two of the witnesses said they heard Lewis say words to the effect of, "[Y]ou ain't going to be with your sister and them forever" and "I'm going to get you." One of the witnesses testified that she saw Lewis get a gun out of the trunk of her car and place it under the driver's seat. Another witness testified that she saw a gun on the seat of Lewis' car. Dunn herself also testified about Lewis' threats the night before the shooting, although she did not claim to see Lewis with a gun that night. Dunn testified that, after the altercation, she went out and bought a gun for self-defense.
Even if the trial court's initial ruling precluding evidence of prior difficulties between Dunn and Lewis was erroneous, Dunn has failed to show that she was harmed by such ruling, since she was subsequently allowed to present such evidence.3 Nor has she shown how she was harmed by the failure to discuss such evidence in her opening statements. The trial court charged the jury on the defense of justification, and there is no indication that Dunn was prohibited from discussing the prior difficulties in closing arguments to support such a theory. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely the verdict would have been different had the trial court allowed Dunn to mention the prior difficulties evidence in her opening statements.
Dunn's contention that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to comply with the notice requirements of Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.6 with respect to the prior difficulties evidence is also without merit. Since Dunn was in fact able to introduce evidence of the prior difficulties, she has not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had her attorney complied with the rule.4
2. Dunn contends that there was no evidence of malice to support her conviction for aggravated battery in connection with the shooting of the innocent bystander. This contention is without merit. "A person acts `maliciously' when [she] acts intentionally and without justification or serious provocation."5 Viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to conclude that Dunn acted intentionally and without justification or serious provocation in firing the shot in question.6 Although Dunn may not have intended to shoot the bystander, "when an unintended victim is struck down as a result of an unlawful act actually directed against someone else, the law ... transfers the original intent from the one against whom it was directed to the one who actually suffered from it."7
3. Dunn contends that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to read a statement given by a witness who had testified earlier in the trial. She argues that evidence of the witness' prior statement improperly bolstered his testimony and was inadmissible because "veracity of the ... witness was not an issue."8
On cross-examination, Dunn's attorney attempted to portray Bush as an alcoholic who drank "every day of his life," and who had been forced to spend the previous night in jail because he showed up for court drunk. He also questioned Bush about inconsistencies between his testimony and the statement he had earlier given to the police:
Q. [W]hen you first gave a statement you said that the person in the burgundy car yelled out of her car, bitch, what are you trying to do, hit my car, is that right?
A. Yes, sir, that's right. I didn't want to come out and say that kind of word, you know.
Q. Yes, sir, I understand that and I appreciate that. But that ... when you first gave the statement to the police officer and it was written out here, you said, bitch, what are you trying to do ... you said the person in the burgundy car said, bitch, what are you trying to do, hit my car, isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, and then when you described the incident you said that the driver of the burgundy car pulled out a pistol and fired one shot, isn't that right?
Dunn's attorney continued to cross-examine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lonon v. State
...under doctrine of transferred intent); Blackwell v. State , 302 Ga. 820, 821-822 (1), 809 S.E.2d 727 (2018) ; Dunn v. State , 242 Ga. App. 525, 528 (2), 530 S.E.2d 236 (2000). (c) Lonon also contends that, without a necropsy, the circumstantial evidence failed to prove that the fire proxima......
-
Bizzard v. State
...or justification when he struck the victim, and it therefore suffices to sustain Bizzard's conviction. See Dunn v. State, 242 Ga.App. 525, 528(2), 530 S.E.2d 236 (2000). 2. Bizzard also contends that the State failed to prove venue. We agree. The Georgia Constitution “requires that venue in......
-
Barrow v. State, No. A04A1429
...11. See Gay, supra. 12. See id.; Browner v. State, 265 Ga.App. 788, 794(3), 595 S.E.2d 610 (2004). 13. See Dunn v. State, 242 Ga.App. 525, 530(3), 530 S.E.2d 236 (2000). 14. See Baggs v. State, 265 Ga.App. 282, 285(4), 593 S.E.2d 734 (2004). 15. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 17......
-
Johnson v. State
...satisfied two alternative methods of causing bodily harm, and there was sufficient evidence that Johnson inflicted them maliciously. Dunn v. State.9 Counts 11 and 12, Aggravated Stalking and Terroristic Threats and A person commits terroristic threats and acts when he "threatens to commit a......
-
Real Property - T. Daniel Brannan and William J. Sheppard
...492 S.E.2d at 235). 46. Id. 47. Id. (citing Cook v. Pridgen, Stapler & Dunn, 45 Ga. 331, 340-41, 12 Am. Rep. 582, 584 (1872)). 48. Id., 530 S.E.2d at 236. 49. Id. at 539-40, 530 S.E.2d at 236 (citations omitted). 50. Id. at 540, 530 S.E.2d at 236 (citing O.C.G.A. Sec. 44-9-1). 51. Id. (quot......