Garrett v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. S03A0219.,S03A0219. |
| Citation | 276 Ga. 556,580 S.E.2d 236 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | GARRETT v. The STATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sharon L. Hopkins, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bettieanne C. Hart, Marc A. Mallon, Asst. Dist. Attys., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Wylencia H. Monroe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury convicted Michael Garrett of malice murder and related crimes for shooting to death Andre Poole.1 On appeal, Garrett contends that the trial court's justification charge was inadequate. Because Garrett failed to request a broader charge and the trial court's instructions to the jury on justification adequately covered the applicable law, we affirm.
Taken in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict of guilty, the evidence at trial showed that Garrett had expressed a desire to "get" Poole because he believed that Poole had murdered Garrett's best friend. On March 22, 2000, Garrett drove into his apartment complex and saw Poole sitting on the back of a parked car listening to music along with several other people. The two men exchanged "cold" stares, and, after Garrett drove by, Poole moved to the passenger seat of the car. Garrett parked his car around the corner, grabbed a gun from under the seat, pushed aside a friend who tried to stop him, ran to within a few feet of Poole and shot him. Poole jumped out of the driver's side of the car and, with Garrett in pursuit, ran a short ways before collapsing on a nearby sidewalk. Poole died from two gunshot wounds. No weapon was found on Poole or in the car in which he had been sitting.
At trial, Garrett conceded that he had shot Poole, but argued that he suffered from a delusional compulsion that Poole was trying to kill him. According to Garrett, when he saw Poole, he believed that he was facing an imminent attack and shot Poole in self-defense. The jury rejected Garrett's defense and convicted him on all counts.
1. The evidence at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Garrett guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.2
2. The trial court instructed the jury on justification, and Garrett's attorney agreed that the trial court's charge was appropriate. On appeal, Garrett contends that (i) the trial court should have instructed the jury that threats and menaces can justify deadly force and (ii) his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a broader justification charge. Garrett's enumerations of error are without merit.
(a) Nothing about the justification charge that the trial court gave relieved Garrett from his general obligation to request any additional charges that he desired. Accordingly, Garrett's failure to request a charge on threats and menaces precludes him from raising its omission on appeal.3
(b) A defendant's trial attorney is presumed to have provided reasonably effective representation.4 When, as here, trial counsel did not testify at the motion for new trial hearing, the defendant generally has a particularly difficult time overcoming the presumption that his attorney's conduct was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.5 Garrett's attorney could have reasonably decided that the lack of evidence that Poole threatened or menaced Garrett immediately before the shooting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State, No. S03G0176.
...adduced at trial. However, unlike this appeal, most do not involve the accused's admission in judicio. See, e.g., Garrett v. State, 276 Ga. 556, 557(1), 580 S.E.2d 236 (2003); Miller v. State, 275 Ga. 730, 731(1), 571 S.E.2d 788 (2002); Rhode v. State, 274 Ga. 377(1), 552 S.E.2d 855 (2001);......
- Kimbrough v. State
-
Ellis v. The State, S10A0157.
...(2000). Therefore, Ellis' failure to request the charge precludes him from challenging its omission on appeal. Garrett v. State, 276 Ga. 556, 557(2)(a), 580 S.E.2d 236 (2003). Judgment affirmed.All the Justices concur. *. The crimes occurred on July 12, 2004, and the grand jury returned the......
-
Judkins v. State
...Ga. 115(2), 516 S.E.2d 525 (1999)), and his claim of ineffective assistance is therefore without merit. See, e.g., Garrett v. State, 276 Ga. 556(2)(b), 580 S.E.2d 236 (2003). Judgment All the Justices concur. 1. On November 12, 2002, Judkins was indicted for malice murder, armed robbery, ki......