Fields v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 23021,23021 |
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 339,221 Ga. 307 |
| Parties | Rufus FIELDS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The verdict was support by the evidence.
2. By calling the psychiatrist as his witness and allowing him to testify as to the mental condition of the defendant, the defense waived the right to object to relevant cross-examination of the doctor on the ground that such matter was a privileged communication between psychiatrist and patient.
3. The refusal to instruct on circumstantial evidence is not error where the defendant admits shooting the deceased.
4. Under the facts of this case, the charge on incriminatory statements was not harmful to the defendant.
5. Since the photographs were not made a part of the record this court has no way of determining whether they were prejudicial as claimed by the defendant.
6. It was not error to refuse to give the requested charges.
7. The court properly refused to charge the jury on accident or misfortune, there being no evidence to support such a charge.
8. The charge requested on the burden of proof as to insanity was an incorrect statement of the law and the court properly refused to give it.
9. It was not error to refuse to give the requested charges on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, there being no evidence to support such a theory.
10. The court adequately charged the jury on burden of proof.
Aaron Kravitch, John J. Sullivan, John Wright Jones, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol. Gen., Andrew J. Ryan, III, Savannah, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The defendant, Rufus L. Fields, was tried in the Superior Court of Chatham County for the murder of his wife. The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy and the trial judge sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. His amended motion for new trial having been overruled, the defendant brings his case to this court for review, assigning error on the overruling of this motion.
1. It was not error to overrule the general grounds of the motion for new trial. The undisputed evidence showed that: the defendant was found in the room with his wife's body; the wife had been shot and killed with a rifle which was on the floor; the defendant stated to several persons that he had shot and killed his wife. On the trial of the case the defendant did not deny the killing, but instead based his defense on insanity at the time of the shooting. Several expert witnesses who testified for the defendant stated that he was insane at the time of the shooting. There was no positive testimony as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of the shooting. However, under the ruling in Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567, 63 S.E.2d 394, the jury is free to reject the testimony of expert witnesses as to the sanity of the accused and rely instead on the presumption of sanity. Under this ruling the jury could properly find that the defendant was sane even though there was no positive testimony to that effect.
There was evidence to support the verdict and the court did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial.
2. In grounds 1 and 2 of the amended motion for new trial it is urged that the court erred in admitting and refusing to strike a portion of the testimony of Dr. A. H. Center, a psychiatrist who testified that the defendant was insane. The testimony in question was elicited from Dr. Center on cross examination and consisted of statements made by the defendant to Dr. Center in the course of his examination of the accused. It is the contention of the defendant that the admission of this testimony violates Code Ann. § 38-418(5) (Ga. L. 1959, p. 190) which provides that communications between psychiatrist and patient are privileged. Although testimony of this nature is privileged, we are of the opinion that the privilege was waived when the defendant called the doctor as his witness and questioned him as to the mental condition of the accused. In 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton rev. 1961) § 2390(2), p. 861, it is said: See also 58 Am.Jur. § 450, p. 254 and 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 310 d, pp. 863-864. The rule applies to mental condition as well as to physical. By calling the doctor as his witness and allowing him to testify as to the mental condition of the accused the defense waived the right to object to relevant cross examination of the doctor on the ground that such matter was a privileged communication between patient and psychiatrist.
It is also urged that the testimony of the doctor as to statements made by the defendant to him was hearsay and thus inadmissible in evidence. This contention is lacking in merit. The statement of the accused were admissible, not for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of such statements, but for the purpose of determining the basis of the expert witness' opinion. Moreover, the testimony which the defendant seeks to strike out was favorable to him as it tended to support his claim of insanity.
3. In ground 3 it is urged that the court erred in failing to charge the jury on the burden of proof necessary to convict when the case is dependent an circumstantial evidence. In Bowen v. State, 181 Ga. 427, 429, 182 S.E. 510, 511, it was held that the failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence is not error where the defendant admits shooting the deceased. In the case at bar the defendant told several people shortly after the shooting that he had shot his wife. Under the ruling in Bowen v. State, supra, this was direct evidence of the guilt of the accused, and there being direct evidence, the court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the law relating to circumstantial evidence.
4. In ground 4 of the amended motion it is alleged that the court erred in charging the jury on incriminatory statements. The portion of the charge about which defendant complains is as follows: 'If you find further that at the time of such alleged admissions were made he was laboring under a mental condition that caused him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trammel v. Bradberry
...251 Ga. 877, 881-882, 311 S.E.2d 161 (1984); Griggs v. State, 241 Ga. 317, 318-319(3), 245 S.E.2d 269 (1978); Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307, 308-309(2), 144 S.E.2d 339 (1965); accord Kennestone Hosp. v. Hopson, supra at 148, 538 S.E.2d However, the psychiatric privilege is not waived as to a......
-
House v. State
...66 S.E.2d 913; McGruder v. State, 213 Ga. 259(4), 98 S.E.2d 564; Ledford v. State, 215 Ga. 799(10), 113 S.E.2d 628; Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307(3), 144 S.E.2d 339; Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292(11), 174 S.E.2d 440; Bryant [232 Ga. 147] v. State, 229 Ga. 60(1), 189 S.E.2d 435. Appellant's co......
-
Moses v. State
...to reject expert testimony as to sanity and may find an accused sane even without positive testimony as to sanity. Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307, 308(1), 144 S.E.2d 339 (1965). The witnesses introduced by defendant testified as to his condition at various times ranging from several months to......
-
Johnson v. State
...however, remains in the case for the jury to consider along with the evidence presented by the defendant in rebuttal. Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307, 144 S.E.2d 339; Boyd v. State, supra. See Templeton v. Kennesaw Life & Accident Co., 216 Ga. 770, 119 S.E.2d 549. The statement of guilt, there......