Durham v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 34569,34569 |
| Citation | 254 S.E.2d 359,243 Ga. 408 |
| Parties | DURHAM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Joneal Lee, Perry, for appellant.
Stephen Pace, Jr., Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Daryl A. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant appeals from his convictions of murder and rape, for which he was given consecutive sentences of life and 15-years' imprisonment respectively.
1. The first enumerated error is that the verdict was contrary to the law and to the evidence as to the rape conviction in that (1) the verdict was based solely upon the unsupported testimony of the alleged accomplice, Styles; (2) the state failed to show that a rape had, in fact, occurred; and (3) the state failed to show lack of consent on the part of the rape-murder victim.
In Collins v. State, 243 Ga. 291, 253 S.E.2d 729 (1979), this court set out the facts in the appeal of Durham's accomplice (which are adopted by reference herein), and upheld his convictions of murder and rape of the same victim, also based in part upon the substantially identical testimony of another alleged accomplice, Styles. We held there, in Division 7, that a charge of rape could be proven although the victim is unable to testify because she subsequently was murdered by her assailant, citing Spraggins v. State, 240 Ga. 759, 761, 243 S.E.2d 20 (1978). The testimony of Styles, the virtually identical version of which was approved and used to support the convictions in the companion case, was sufficient to authorize the finding of the present appellant's commission of the crime of rape of the same victim.
2. The second enumerated error, that the murder conviction was unauthorized, being based solely upon the unsupported testimony of Styles, is likewise without merit. Styles' testimony, the substantially identical version of which we held in Collins, supra, authorized Collins' conviction of murder, also authorized Durham's murder conviction.
3. The third enumerated error is the overruling of the defense motion to suppress the defendant's in-custody statements. It is argued that the Miranda warnings, which are conceded to have been given prior to the statements, were deficient in that they did not warn him that he should have present with him at the time of making such dangerous statements, an attorney or, at least, a "disinterested person." We know of no such legal requirement. The trial court conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing, after which he determined that the statements were voluntarily made, hence admissible. We perceive no grounds for reversing the trial judge's determination.
4. The fourth enumerated error is that the trial judge erred in charging the jury in part as follows: "If you should find from the evidence that the witness, J. C. Styles, in this case was an accomplice . . ."
The appellant points out that the district attorney had stated in open court that Styles had been charged with the offense of rape in connection with this incident; that, in exchange for his testimony in the trial of the case, the state was recommending that he be granted immunity; that his attorney was in the courtroom; and that Styles had been advised of his rights and had agreed to testify. Appellant Durham contends that there can be no doubt that Styles Was an accomplice, and that, therefore, the judge should have so charged. If there is any principle well-ingrained in our system of justice, it is that one is not presumed guilty by reason of having been indicted for a crime, and that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the trial judge properly let the jury decide whether Styles was an accomplice, based upon the evidence adduced during the trial, and not upon the fact of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felker v. State
...sodomy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Payne v. State, 231 Ga. 755 (1), 204 S.E.2d 128 (1974). See also, Durham v. State, 243 Ga. 408 (1), 254 S.E.2d 359 (1979); Spraggins v. State, 240 Ga. 759 (1), 243 S.E.2d 20 (1978); Neal v. State, 152 Ga.App. 395 (1), 263 S.E.2d 185 (1979). "......
-
Dawson v. State
...for, qualify, or explain them, and [were] apparently natural and spontaneous") (citation and punctuation omitted); Durham v. State , 243 Ga. 408, 410, 254 S.E.2d 359 (1979) (witness's testimony that defendant told him something "to the effect [of] this wasn't the first time he had killed an......
-
McClain v. State
...made by McClain during the commission of the battery, even if the statements related to previous crimes. See Durham v. State, 243 Ga. 408, 410(7), 254 S.E.2d 359 (1979); Belcher v. State, 201 Ga.App. 139, 140-141(2), 410 S.E.2d 344 (1991); Morgan v. State, 161 Ga. App. 67(2), 288 S.E.2d 836......
-
Santamaria v. State, 65547
...criterion for determining the validity of proposed exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility. See, e.g., Durham v. State, 243 Ga. 408, 254 S.E.2d 359 (1979); Hale v. State, 159 Ga.App. 563, 284 S.E.2d 68 (1981); Garrett v. State, 147 Ga.App. 666, 250 S.E.2d 1 In the instant case the......