Gee v. State, s. S91A0140
| Decision Date | 11 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. S91A0140,S91A0141,s. S91A0140 |
| Citation | 402 S.E.2d 719,261 Ga. 178 |
| Parties | GEE v. STATE. HOLCOMB v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
G. Hammond Law, III, Whitmer and Law, Gainesville, for Gee.
C. Andrew Fuller, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Lee Darragh, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
Daniel A. Summer, Summer & Summer, Gainesville, for Holcomb.
Wanda Gee and U.J. Holcomb were jointly tried by a jury and convicted of the malice murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault of Ben Helton. Each was given consecutive life sentences for the murder and armed robbery convictions. 1 They appeal.
The defendants attacked the victim while he was driving a taxicab they occupied. Defendant Holcomb held the victim from behind while defendant Gee stabbed him in the head with an ice pick. After finding nothing in the victim's wallet, defendant Gee took $14 from the shirt pocket. The defendants then left the scene with Kathy Land, who had been in the taxicab with them. The victim died three days later as a result of one of the stab wounds to his head. At trial, the eye witness, Kathy Land, testified extensively about the crimes. Also, a number of witnesses testified about defendant Gee's statements to them regarding her involvement in the crime.
1. We have reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's determination, and conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendants guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Defendant Gee contends the trial court erred by charging the jury on voluntary intoxication because she made no issue of intoxication and did not suggest intoxication as a defense. However, there was ample evidence of her cocaine-intoxicated condition close to the time the victim was killed. She admitted at trial that on the day of the murder she had been using drugs "maybe every 15 or 20 minutes, 30 minutes." Accordingly, this enumeration is without merit. McKenzie v. State, 249 Ga. 582(2), 292 S.E.2d 692 (1982).
3. Likewise, we find no merit to defendant Gee's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to grant her motion to sever. Absent a showing that she was in some way prejudiced by the refusal to sever, no abuse of discretion is demonstrated, and the trial court's ruling will be upheld. OCGA § 17-8-4; Mapp v. State, 258 Ga. 273, 274(3), 368 S.E.2d 511 (1988); Allen v. State, 255 Ga. 513, 515(1), 340 S.E.2d 187 (1986).
4. Defendant Holcomb contends the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for directed verdict because the only evidence linking him to the crimes was based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, which is insufficient to sustain his convictions under OCGA § 24-4-8. His argument that the eye witness to the crimes, Kathy Land, was an accomplice has no support in the record. Rather, it is clear that Land was in the taxicab with the defendants because she believed they were going to get the cocaine for which she had previously paid them. There was no evidence that Land was aware of any plan to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. State
...180 (1999). 3. Butler, 270 Ga. at 446, 511 S.E.2d 180. 4. Heard v. State, 274 Ga. 196, 199, 552 S.E.2d 818 (2001); Gee v. State, 261 Ga. 178, 179(3), 402 S.E.2d 719 (1991). 5. 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). 6. See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208, 107 S.Ct. 1702, ......
-
Thomas v. State
...severance is necessary and that determination will not be set aside unless there is an abuse of that discretion. Gee v. State, 261 Ga. 178, 179(3), 402 S.E.2d 719 (1991). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas's severance motion. In considering severanc......
-
Flores v. the State.Lopez v. the State., s. A10A1828
...were cross-examined); Kennedy, supra. 22. Chandler v. State, 213 Ga.App. 46, 47(1), 443 S.E.2d 679 (1994). 23. See Gee v. State, 261 Ga. 178, 179(3), 402 S.E.2d 719 (1991); Diaz v. State, 280 Ga.App. 413, 416, 634 S.E.2d 160 (2006). 24. See Jackson v. Virginia, supra; Mitchell v. State, 268......
-
Callendar v. State, S01A1292.
...motion to sever. After all, Callendar failed to make a clear showing of prejudice and a denial of due process protection. Gee v. State, 261 Ga. 178, 179(3), 402 S.E.2d 719 (1991); Burgan v. State, 258 Ga. 512, 516(8), 371 S.E.2d 854 The mere fact that Montgomery tried to pin the blame on Ca......