Edwards v. State, 30760
| Decision Date | 11 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30760,30760 |
| Citation | 236 Ga. 486,224 S.E.2d 361 |
| Parties | Paul Duane EDWARDS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Paul Duane Edwards, pro se.
Edward Lang, Decatur, Ga., for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Calvin A. Leipold, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Thomas Davis, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment on May 14, 1975. A coindictee, Jill Claude Shaw, was not tried with appellant and entered a plea of guilty on October 27, 1975. Appellant complains of the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict, denial of his motion for new trial on the general grounds, denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial, and certain errors in the trial. HELD:
1. The trial court did not err in denying the motions for directed verdict and new trial. Although the appellant was not present at the murder, he confessed that he and the coindictee had planned it. There was ample other evidence to prove the corpus delicti and to connect the appellant with the crime. Lowe v. State, 225 Ga. 56, 165 S.E.2d 861 (1969).
2. The denial of appellant's extraordinary motion for new trial on the ground that the coindictee in entering her plea of guilty in open court testified on oath that no one else was involved in the crime was not error. Bryant v. State, 197 Ga. 641, 656, 30 S.E.2d 259 (1944).
3. Appellant's complaint that jurors conscientiously opposed to capital punishment should not have been excused for this reason is without merit. The jurors were excused because they stated they would not impose a death penalty under any circumstances. Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730, 736(10), 182 S.E.2d 779 (1971).
4. The evidence supports the finding that appellant was given the Miranda warnings and waived them both orally and in writing.
5. Appellant contends his confession was inadmissible because it was procured be telling him it was the only way he would be permitted to attend his wife's funeral. See Code § 38-411. This was denied by the officer receiving the statement. The officer testified that after the confession was received there was some discussion with the appellant and his father concerning permission to attend the funeral. He told them it was contrary to the rules but he would check with his superiors. We find no error. The confession was prima facie freely and voluntarily made and was admissible in evidence. Moore v. State, 221 Ga. 636(3), 146 S.E.2d 895 (1966).
6. Appellant complains that a statement of the trial court was prejudicial error. There was no error. This statement was made to the attorneys out of the presence of the jury when ruling on whether to charge on confession. Also, it is taken out of context. The entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...his conviction despite the participation of Ms. Bell in the murder. Carter, supra, 227 Ga. at 789-790, 183 S.E.2d 392; Edwards v. State, 236 Ga. 486, 224 S.E.2d 361 (1976). Appellant also raises two issues concerning the hearing held by the trial court on his extraordinary motion for new tr......
-
Phillips v. State, 32058
...instructed the jury to disregard the statements. This cured any infirmity arising from the argument. Cf. Edwards v. State, 236 Ga. 486, 487(7), 224 S.E.2d 361 (1976). Finally, appellant argues that it was error not to direct a verdict on the motor vehicle theft charge because that offense m......
-
Edwards v. Joyner, 77-2723
...83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). These allegations were not presented to the state court on direct appeal, Edwards v. State of Georgia,236 Ga. 486, 224 S.E.2d 361 (1976), and the record reflects no other state proceedings. A § 1983 action raising issues that go directly to the constitu......
-
Wynn v. State
...and made to attorneys out of the presence of the jury, ordinarily will not constitute error and does not in this case. Edwards v. State, 236 Ga. 486, 487, 224 S.E.2d 361. We find no merit in this Judgment affirmed. QUILLIAN, P. J., and SMITH, J., concur. ...