Edwards v. State, 29530
| Decision Date | 04 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29530,29530 |
| Parties | James EDWARDS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John Thomas Chason, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Lois F. Oakley, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
James Edwards was convicted of the murder of Sylvester Derrico and given a sentence of life imprisonment. He appeals from his conviction and sentence, enumerating four alleged errors.
1. The first enumeration of error to be considered is that the court erred in charging the jury on the felony murder rule. Code Ann. § 26-1101(b) (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1276).
The trial judge charged on this rule, and instructed the jury that they could find the appellant guilty if he caused the death of a human being with malice, express or implied, or in the commission of a felony, irrespective of malice.
The appellant argues that the charge was not applicable to the facts of the case.
The appellant was not indicted for felony murder. The homicide occurred after an argument between the appellant and the victim concerning a coat which the appellant had pawned to the victim. While the victim lay on the floor in a dying condition, the appellant took some money and a coat from the victim. The felony murder rule would be applicable to this evidence in the event the jury found that the homicide was in the commission of an armed robbery, that is, that the purpose of the appellant in shooting the victim was to commit theft.
The appellant argues further that the felony murder rule as given was error because the judge failed to provide guidance for the jury to determine whether the elements of felony murder were present.
The Court of Appeals, in Teal v. State, 122 Ga.App. 532(2), 177 S.E.2d 840, stated that instructions on felony murder which did not define the elemtns of an applicable felony, as disclosed by the evidence, were incomplete. It was held that the incompleteness of the instructions in that case was harmless error since the accused was not found guilty of murder.
The appellant in the present case was convicted of murder. The judge charged the felony murder rule but did not define the elements of a felony which would make the rule applicable to the evidence. It was harmful error to give the incomplete felony murder rule.
2. The second enumeration of error to be considered is that the court erred in failing to reinstruct the jury upon their request as to the definition of murder and manslaughter.
Prior to receiving the jury's verdict, counsel for the appellant stated to the judge that he thought the jury wanted further instructions on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The judge replied that he understood that they had a verdict. Defense counsel requested that the judge inquire of the jury foreman, before they announced the verdict, if they had a question of the court. The judge asked: 'The request was that I read the charge again, wasn't it?' The sheriff stated: 'Wanted a charge on murder and manslaughter.' The court then stated: Whereupon the jury entered the courtroom and published their verdict.
When the jury requests the court to recharge them on any point, it is the court's duty to do so. O'Shields v. State, 55 Ga. 696(4); Phelps v. State, 75 Ga. 571(4); Short v. State, 140 Ga. 780(9), 80...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prater v. State
...on the law of felony murder and apprised of the essential elements of the felony supporting felony murder. See Edwards v. State, 233 Ga. 625(1), 212 S.E.2d 802 (1975). The Court then went on to state as "[t]he obverse of [the above] proposition," that a jury had to be informed of the essent......
-
Roundtree v. State
...to determine the need, breadth, and formation of any additional jury instructions." (citation omitted)). Cf. Edwards v. State , 233 Ga. 625, 626 (2), 212 S.E.2d 802 (1975) ("When the jury requests the court to recharge them on any point, it is the court's duty to do so.").17 See Weyer , 333......
-
Flynt v. State
...the court to recharge them on any point, it is the court's duty to do so. (Cits.)" (Emphasis supplied.) Edwards v. State, 233 Ga. 625, 626(2), 212 S.E.2d 802, 804 (1975). Clearly the jury's request for the "big chart," without more, does not indicate that they were confused or in doubt as t......
-
Sears v. State
...United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). 7. 256 Ga. 521, 523, 350 S.E.2d 446 (1986). 8. See Edwards v. State, 233 Ga. 625, 626, 212 S.E.2d 802 (1975); United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1364-1365 (11th Cir.1989) (finding no coercion where juror wrote note stating......