Graves v. State, S90A1660
| Decision Date | 07 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S90A1660,S90A1660 |
| Citation | 260 Ga. 779,399 S.E.2d 922 |
| Parties | GRAVES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jay William Fitt, Dorothy Williams, Columbus, for Graves.
Douglas C. Pullen, Dist. Atty., Columbus, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, E. Carlton Carter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Columbus, Mary H. Hines, Staff Atty., Atlanta, for the State.
Jamie Lee Graves was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery and burglary. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for murder and armed robbery, and a term of years for burglary. 1
The victim, Kathryn Stryker, lived with her invalid mother, Wessie Jenkins, in the defendant's neighborhood in Columbus, Georgia. The defendant, who was 16 years old at the time of the crimes, often performed yard work and odd jobs for them.
When the victim's pastor was unable to reach her for several days, he asked the Muscogee County Sheriff's Department to investigate. A deputy sheriff found an accumulation of newspapers on the victim's front porch. Entering the house, he found Wessie Jenkins in her bedroom, gasping for breath. Several of Mrs. Jenkins's knuckles had been cut off and she was lying in a pool of blood. 2 The deputy then found the victim on the kitchen floor. The upper portion of her head had been completely beaten in, and a butcher knife was buried in her chest.
While interviewing the victim's neighbors, officers learned that the defendant had raked leaves for the victim on the last day the victim had been seen in the neighborhood. Hoping to establish the time of death, officers asked the defendant to come to the police station for an interview. According to the testimony of the interviewing officer, the defendant made a number of inconsistent, but non-incriminating, statements about last seeing the victim and what he had done on that day. The officer terminated the interview and summoned the defendant's mother to the police station. When she arrived, the officer explained that the defendant had made conflicting statements about seeing the victim, and then advised the defendant and his mother of the defendant's Miranda rights. The mother stated that she would like to have the defendant's juvenile court service worker present. After the court service worker arrived, the police officer again administered the Miranda warnings. The defendant and his mother stated that they understood his rights. The defendant then told police that his friend, Jerome Bowden, 3 had stolen his pellet gun and used it to beat the victim. The defendant also stated that Bowden had stolen a number of items from the victim and given them to the defendant for safekeeping.
Executing a search warrant, police discovered a pellet gun hidden under the back porch of the defendant's house. A hair found on the gun was consistent with the victim's hair. Blood was found on the gun, but of an amount too small to type. Jewelry identified as belonging to the victim was discovered hidden throughout the defendant's house. Police also found a note pad inscribed with the victim's name hidden in a stove on the defendant's back porch. Later, police recovered a television which the defendant had sold to a friend shortly after the victim's death; a television repairman identified it by the serial number as a television he had repaired for the victim.
Medical evidence showed that the perpetrator dealt four severe blows to the victim's skull, causing it to split. The medical examiner testified that a pellet gun could have been the object used to inflict these injuries. The medical examiner also testified that multiple skull fractures caused the victim's death, and opined that she had been stabbed after she was dead.
The defendant testified that Jerome Bowden stole his pellet gun and used it to beat the victim to death. The defendant further testified that Bowden stabbed the victim because "he did not want her to suffer." The defendant denied participating in the murder, but admitted he had hidden the objects stolen from the victim for Bowden.
1. While conceding that a motion for mistrial is not ripe prior to impanelling the jury, Ferguson v. State, 219 Ga. 33(3), 131 S.E.2d 538 (1963), the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made when a prospective juror stated, "I feel like [the defendant's] guilty," during voir dire.
Following this statement the record shows that the trial court immediately instructed the prospective jurors to respond only to the district attorney's questions and not to make extraneous statements. The defendant then moved for a mistrial. The trial court did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Higgins
...agreement. (a). A settlement agreement is a contract and the question of its enforceability is for the court to decide. Graves v. State, 260 Ga. 779, 399 S.E.2d 922. Where a settlement agreement is incorporated into a final decree of divorce, a suit seeking damages for the violation of its ......
-
Green v. State
...which show the location and nature of wounds are relevant. Isaac v. State, 263 Ga. 872(3), 440 S.E.2d 175 (1994); Graves v. State, 260 Ga. 779(4), 399 S.E.2d 922 (1991). The photographs did not depict the body after its state had been changed by authorities or the pathologist. Compare Brown......
-
Stafford v. State, S99A1245.
...Ga. 888, 889, 494 S.E.2d 666 (1998). 4. See Whatley v. State, 270 Ga. 296, 297-298, 509 S.E.2d 45 (1998). 5. See Graves v. State, 260 Ga. 779, 780-781, 399 S.E.2d 922 (1991). 6. Brown v. State, 269 Ga. 67, 69, 495 S.E.2d 289 7. Hawkins v. State, 267 Ga. 124, 125, 475 S.E.2d 625 (1996). 8. G......
-
Allen v. Allen, S90A1626
... ... (a) "Proceedings for a divorce and for alimony have always, under the practice in this State", been regarded as equitable.\" Rogers v. Rogers, 103 Ga. 763, 765, 30 S.E. 659 (1898) ... \xC2" ... ...