English v. State, 29861

• Decision Date: 17 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 29861,29861
• Citation: 234 Ga. 602,216 S.E.2d 851
• Parties: Tony Curtis ENGLISH v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 851

216 S.E.2d 851

234 Ga. 602

Tony Curtis ENGLISH v. The STATE.

No. 29861.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 17, 1975.

Jack Dorsey, Atlanta, for appellant.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

UNDERCOFLER, Presiding Justice.

Tony Curtis English was convicted of the murder of Willie Lewis Floyd and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The evidence shows that on the night of September 14, 1974, Glenda Travis, here three year old son, and Elaine Adams were standing by a bus stop in Atlanta waiting for the father of Travis' son. While they were standing there Willie Lewis Floyd, the victim, drove by and asked them if they would like a ride. About this same time a blue and white Cadillac drove up to the corner. The appellant also arrived at the scene. Floyd opened the trunk of his car and offered some beer to the appellant, Travis, and Adams. Floyd told them that he had plenty of money in his pocket and there were numerous bills in the trunk of his car. Jackie King was walking nearby and the appellant asked her if she wanted a beer. The appellant told King, Adams, and Travis that Floyd had a lot of money and that he intended to rob him and 'rip him off' in order to get enough money to travel to Florida to visit his mother. He pulled a gun from his pocket and showed it to the women. Adams and Travis left the scene and walked to a friend's house. King left in the Cadillac. English and the victim were left together. When Adams and Travis returned later they found Floyd lying on the ground groaning and his pants pockets were turned inside out. The appellant then emerged from some bushes a few feet away from where Floyd was lying and told the women, 'I didn't mean to kill the man . . . I shot him but I wasn't trying to kill him . . . Please don't tell my aunt.' Travis, Adams and the appellant walked to the home of appellant's aunt where Travis told her, 'Willie Mae, your grandson just killed a man down the street.' The appellant told Travis, 'I should have killed your _ _ and put you down where that man was.' The appellant they told his aunt that he did not shoot Floyd.

Before Travis and Adams encountered the appellant following the discovery of a man lying wounded on the street, the appellant had approached King not too far from her apartment and told her that he had shot the man down by the car because he had pulled a knife on him. The victim received four gunshot wounds, three of them in the head and one to the right cheek. The two front pockets of the victim's pants were turned inside out and his wallet was lying on the trunk of his automobile. Inside the trunk of the automobile was an overturned beer can. The emergency flashers on the victim's car were operating and blood stains were found on the front seat of the car. There was no knife or other offensive weapon found in the car. The police interviewed Travis, Adams and King and on the basis of their statements arrested the appellant. Shortly after he was arrested he was taken to the police station for further questioning. Nitric acid swabbings were taken of his hands and they revealed the presence of barium antimony and lead, which are commonly discharged from a firearm at the time of firing. The police officer testified that the presence of this substance on the swabbings indicated that the appellant could have either handled a weapon that had recently been fired or could have fired the weapon himself.

The appellant presented no evidence in his own defense and rested his case. HELD:

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and the general grounds are without merit. The motion for a directed verdict of not guilty was also properly overruled.

2. In enumerations of error numbers one and five the appellant complains because the trial court overruled his objections to certain leading questions. There is no merit to this contention.

'A judge is given latitude and discretion in permitting leading questions, and unless there has been an abuse thereof, resulting in prejudice and injury, there is no reversible error. Hill v. State, 41 Ga. 484(5); Parker v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 83 Ga. 539(1), 10 S.E. 233; City of Rome v. Stewart, 116 Ga. 738(2), 42 S.E. 1011; Caison v. State, 171 Ga. 1(9), 154 S.E. 337.' Brown v. State, 206 Ga. 218, 221, 46 S.E.2d 160; Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716(11), 203 S.E.2d 537; Code § 38-1706.

3. In enumerations of error numbers two, ten and fourteen the appellant complains because the court overruled his motion to suppress evidence of the nitric acid swabbings of his hands which were made shortly after he was taken into custody.

(a) The appellant contends that he was sixteen years of age at the time of his arrest and that he should have been treated as a juvenile and should not have been taken to police headquarters where the nitric acid tests were made. He also contends that the tests should not have been made because his parents and attorney were not present. He argues that for these...