Greeson v. The State
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HINES, Justice. |
| Citation | Greeson v. State, 287 Ga. 764, 700 S.E.2d 344 (Ga. 2010) |
| Decision Date | 20 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S10A0780.,S10A0780. |
| Parties | GREESON v. The STATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kearston M. Gill, Cartersville, for appellant.
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney, Christopher R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Jimmy Roger Greeson appeals his convictions for malice murder, theft by taking, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the fatal beating of Ray Carver, the elderly father of Greeson's former girlfriend. His sole challenge is that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for either malice murder or felony murder. Finding the challenge to be without merit, we affirm. 1 Greeson contends that his actions in regard to the victim's death could support only a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. But, the jury found otherwise. The jury was given a special verdict form and directed to consider any mitigating circumstances which might authorize a verdict of Greeson's guilt for voluntary manslaughter, and it expressly rejected that verdict. When this Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence, it does not re-weigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in witness testimony, but instead it defers to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Curinton v. State, 283 Ga. 226, 228, 657 S.E.2d 824 (2008). Our role is to examine the evidence under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392, 397(3), 627 S.E.2d 579 (2006).
The evidence viewed in favor of the verdicts showed the following. Greeson had been in a romantic relationship with Ray Carver's daughter, Joyce Darnell, for approximately five years. Darnell terminated the relationship in July 2008, ordering Greeson to move out of the residence that they shared. Greeson tried to resume the romance even though he knew that Darnell had become involved with another man; Greeson wrote to Darnell and telephoned her with the conversations turning “hateful.” During the course of the relationship with Darnell, Greeson borrowed approximately $6,000 from Carver. After Darnell and Greeson separated, Carver asked Greeson to repay the money. On August 4, 2008, Greeson went to Carver's house under the guise that he was going to pay the debt. Greeson brutally and fatally beat the aged Carver with, inter alia, Greeson's motorcycle helmet and a barbell.
Greeson took two of Carver's handguns and fled in Carver's vehicle, driving it to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where he was subsequently arrested. At the time he was apprehended, Greeson had with him Carver's fully-loaded .38 caliber revolver and car keys. Greeson's clothing was covered with blood; DNA taken from a cutting of a blood stain on Greeson's blue jeans matched that of Carver, and Carver's vehicle was found in the parking lot of the motel at which Greeson was hiding.
Carver's body was found lying in a pool of blood on his living room floor. His face was “all smashed” to the point that he was not recognizable to the neighbor who made the grisly discovery. There were at least 15 distinct impact sites to Carver's head area, and he died from blunt force trauma to his head. Carver had also sustained approximately 19 separate impacts to his back and side, resulting in at least 21 fractures to 15 of his ribs. The blows to his back were caused by either an object heavy enough to inflict a crushing kind of impact or by “stomping.” The wall near Carver's body was splattered with blood as was the carpet and furniture in that area. There was no sign of forced entry into the home. Greeson's motorcycle helmet, damaged and stained with Carver's blood, was found in Carver's garage; also found was a barbell stained with blood and imbedded with human hair. Greeson's motorcycle was discovered abandoned down the street from Carver's home.
In a statement to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Crider v. State
...in witness testimony" but instead defer "to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Greeson v. State, 287 Ga. 764, 765, 700 S.E.2d 344 (2010) (citation omitted). We determine whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a......
-
Shaw v. State
...in the testimony; instead they defer "to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Greeson v. State , 287 Ga. 764, 765, 700 S.E.2d 344 (2010). See also Glaze v. State , 317 Ga.App. 679, 681 (1), 732 S.E.2d 771 (2012). Appellate courts determine whether "after vie......
-
Dority v. State
...in the testimony; instead they defer "to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Greeson v. State, 287 Ga. 764, 765, 700 S.E.2d 344 (2010) (citations omitted). See also Glaze v. State, 317 Ga.App. 679, 680 –681(1), 732 S.E.2d 771 (2012) (footnote omitted). Appe......
-
McLean v. State
...testimony, but instead it defers to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence. [Cit.]” Greeson v. State, 287 Ga. 764, 765, 700 S.E.2d 344 (2010). It is for the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and questions of witness credibility, not this Court. Tolbert v......