Fordham v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 41746,41746 |
| Citation | 254 Ga. 59,325 S.E.2d 755 |
| Parties | FORDHAM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Stanley Smith, Dublin, for Tommy Fordham.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Beverly B. Hayes, Jr., Dist. Atty., William T. McBroom III, Asst. Dist. Atty., J. Michael Davis, Dublin, for the State.
Tommy Fordham was convicted of the stabbing murder of Roscoe Walden, Jr. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 1
1. The evidence is sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Fordham contends that the introduction of photographs of the victim was unduly prejudicial. They depicted the nature and location of the wounds, which were clearly material. Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10, 243 S.E.2d 59 (1978). No autopsy photographs were admitted. Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983). This enumeration is without merit.
3. Fordham enumerates as error the introduction of statements made while in police custody. Fordham was fully advised of his Miranda rights prior to each statement, signed waiver of counsel forms, was not threatened or coerced, and appeared to understand his rights. A Jackson-Denno hearing was held in which the trial court determined that the statements were freely and voluntarily given. This determination was not clearly erroneous. Moon v. State, 253 Ga. 74, 316 S.E.2d 464 (1984).
4. Fordham contends that the trial court improperly permitted the investigating officer to state his opinion on an important factual issue.
The prosecutor asked the officer, "Was there anything in those statements that would justify Tommy Fordham from killing Roscoe Walden?" A timely objection was overruled, whereupon the question was repeated, and the officer replied, "No, sir."
Ordinarily, a witness may not express his opinion as to an ultimate fact, because to do so would invade the province of the jury. Jones v. State, 232 Ga. 762, 208 S.E.2d 850 (1974). Jurors are the ultimate triers of fact, and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Saul, 189 Ga. 1, 9, 5 S.E.2d 214 (1939).
The issue in this case is whether Fordham killed with malice, or with justification. That is a matter for jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, S92P0087
... ... To this latter testimony, the defendant objects, contending that the presence or absence of similarities were matters which the jurors could determine for themselves. Citing Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59(4), 325 S.E.2d 755 (1985), he contends this testimony was impermissible opinion evidence. We do not agree. The [262 Ga. 296] agent's opinion was one of fact, and was not an inadmissible legal conclusion. The jury was not prevented from drawing its own conclusions from the ... ...
-
Pyatt v. State
...on ultimate issues in the case. Pyatt claims that the trial court erred when it allowed those comments. See Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59, 59–60(4), 325 S.E.2d 755 (1985). Pyatt, however, did not object to the testimony about which he now complains, and for that reason, this claim of error i......
-
Hicks v. State
...his testimony does not fall within the opinion rule, and Williams v. State, 254 Ga. 508, 330 S.E.2d 353 (1985), and Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59, 325 S.E.2d 755 (1985), are (c) The defendant's psychiatrist testified that she had consulted and relied upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manua......
-
Mitchell v. State
...witness may not express his opinion as to an ultimate fact, because to do so would invade the province of the jury." Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59(4), 325 S.E.2d 755 (1985). When a witness states such an impermissible opinion, however, the error may be cured by appropriate remedial action of......
-
An Overview of Ultimate Issue Evidence
...out in O.C.G.A. § 24-7-704 (b)") (quoting State v. Cooper, 324 Ga. App. 32, 34 n.1, 749 S.E.2d 35, 37 n.1 (2013)). [7] Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59, 59, 325 S.E.2d 755, 756 (1985); accord Butler v. State, 292 Ga. 400, 405, 738 S.E.2d 74, 80-81 (2013) (citing Axelburg v. State, 294 Ga. App. ......