Gaines v. State, 32069
| Decision Date | 25 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32069,32069 |
| Citation | 236 S.E.2d 55,239 Ga. 98 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Lee GAINES v. The STATE. |
Archie L. Gleason, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., Stephen E. Curry, Asst. Dist. Atty., Augusta, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Isaac Byrd, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellant, Robert Lee Gaines, was indicted on charges of armed robbery and murder. Also indicted in the occurrence was Carl Chavous, who pled guilty on both counts and received a life sentence. Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences.
The evidence presented shows, that on December 3, 1975, in the early morning hours, Rufus Gaines, a Dixie Service Station attendant, was shot and killed. The wound in his chest contained small lead pellets and shotgun wadding. The cigarette machine at the station had been opened and $24.14 had been taken.
Chavous was arrested and made a confession to the police on December 14, 1975, in which he implicated the appellant. According to Chavous, he and the appellant had been drinking at a local bar on December 2, 1975. At about 11:00 p. m., after being at the bar for about four hours, the two went to visit the appellant's girlfriend. The appellant and his girlfriend argued. When Chavous refused to back up appellant in the argument, appellant threatened to shoot him with a sawed-off shotgun he had hidden in his coat.
Following this argument, the appellant and Chavous returned to the bar where they stayed until about 2 a. m. On their way home, the two men passed the Dixie Service Station and appellant proposed robbing it. Chavous said that appellant threatened to kill him if he would not cooperate. Fearful of appellant's threats, Chavous approached the attendant and asked him for change. Appellant then grabbed the attendant, demanding money. When the attendant convinced him that there was no money, appellant made him unlock a cigarette machine. Appellant forced the attendant to lie down on the ground by the gasoline pumps, aimed a twelve gauge sawed-off shotgun at him, and shot him once. Chavous and the appellant then ran in different directions.
In a statement made to the police on January 29, 1976, Chavous changed his story. In his second statement, he took blame for the entire incident and said the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime.
At appellant's trial, Chavous recounted his original story, in which the appellant had suggested robbing the service station and in which appellant had killed the attendant. The witness explained that the reason for changing his story was appellant's threat to kill him if he did not.
Other evidence presented at the trial which connected the appellant with the crime was testimony by a witness who had been in jail with the appellant and to whom appellant had confessed his guilt; testimony of the arresting officers who told of appellant's flight at the time of his arrest; testimony of the State Crime Laboratory microanalyst that the shot and wadding removed from the deceased had come from a twelve gauge shotgun.
The appellant had made a taped statement to the police on December 14, 1975, following his arrest. The tape was played in full for the jury. In the taped statement, appellant claimed that Chavous had suggested robbing the service station. Appellant waited while Chavous went into the station to ask the attendant for change. The attendant had none. Chavous came across the street to get sixty cents from the appellant. He returned to the station; forced the attendant to open the cigarette machine; and shot the attendant. Chavous then demanded that appellant come and get some cigarettes, threatening to kill him if he did not. Appellant admitted being present during the shooting, but denied killing anyone.
At trial, the appellant testified that his statement was procured through police brutality and that he had witnesses to this fact. No witnesses were produced and at trial, when asked the names of witnesses, he was unable to answer. The appellant testified that on the night of December 2, 1975, he had been drinking with alibi witness David O'Bryant. He had become intoxicated, returned home and passed out on the sofa. He testified that Chavous, who he had seen that evening, had asked the appellant to go with him to rob the Dixie Service Station. He did not accompany Chavous. Appellant's mother and sister testified that appellant was at home on December 2, 1975, from 11:30 p. m. until the next morning.
1. In his first enumeration of error, the appellant complains that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
After a careful review of the evidence, we find that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...and no errors of law, the verdict should not be disturbed. Proctor v. State, 235 Ga. 720, 221 S.E.2d 556 (1975)." Gaines v. State, 239 Ga. 98, 100, 236 S.E.2d 55, 57. While there is evidence in the record which contradicts, in part, the state's principal witness, and evidence of alibi, "sin......
-
Rogers v. State, 60211
...consent to the search of her purse. This is not an admission in the classical sense that it is incriminating per se. See Gaines v. State, 239 Ga. 98, 100, 236 S.E.2d 55. Thus, standing alone it does not require a charge to the jury. See Division 2, We must note that the defendant never requ......
-
Wells v. State
...is offered by the accused as exculpatory or inculpatory.' Robinson v. State, 232 Ga. 123, 126, 205 S.E.2d 210 (1974); Gaines v. State, 239 Ga. 98, 100, 236 S.E.2d 55 (1977). ' "A statement which includes facts or circumstances which show excuse or justification is not a confession of guilt ......
-
Jones v. State
..."Appellate courts will pass not on the weight, but on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict." Gaines v. State, 239 Ga. 98, 100(1), 236 S.E.2d 55, 57 (1977). The same presumptions will be applied, after verdict, to evidence regarding voluntariness of a confession as to any oth......