Hancock v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48879,No. 1,48879,1 |
| Citation | 131 Ga.App. 485,206 S.E.2d 104 |
| Parties | Harold G. HANCOCK v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John W. Rogers, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, William M. Weller, Morris H. Rosenberg, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in that he unlawfully caused death to another by shooting him with a pistol. Additionally, he was convicted of the misdemeanors of carrying a weapon that was concealed and which was unlicensed.
A street dice game was in progress when two men who had previously been onlookers and who had departed returned and at gun point robbed the gamblers, one of whom was the accused from whom a substantial sum was taken. During the holdup Brooks, one of the dice players, drew his pistol and as the robbers fled fired several shots at them. Thereafter, six individuals including both defendant and Brooks drove around in the latter's automobile in an effort to locate the thieves. During this search one of the passengers said, 'There is one of the fellows, now.'
Different versions were presented as to what then transpired. Brooks testified (T. 108) that defendant started the shooting and that the decedent did not fire any shots. An off-duty policeman working as a security officer at a near-by business establishment saw decedent run towards him and testified that one of the passengers in the vehicle shot three times at the fleeing man who was hit in the back. Defendant contended the decedent had begun the shooting. No weapon was found on the person of decedent nor around him.
Through information from an eyewitness who had obtained the vehicle's registration number an arrest was made of Brooks as the owner of the car. He informed the police that defendant was the individual who had done the shooting. Thereafter defendant and his attorney voluntarily reported to the police station where the appellant made a written statement that upon decedent being pointed out as one of the robbers: (T. 365). Defendant's unsworn statement at the trial was to the same effect.
Defendant appeals for a new trial on the general grounds as well as on special grounds. The specific points argued are that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for mistrial in that statements made by defendant without prior Miranda warnings being given were admitted even though limited to 'impeachment purposes'; that the trial court erred 'in commenting in its instruction to the jury that the defendant could have made either a sworn or unsworn statement'; and that the trial judge improperly charged on voluntary manslaughter 'when the evidence was that the death was either murder or justifiable homicide.'
1. Williams v. State, 129 Ga.App. 103, 107, 198 S.E.2d 683, 686. Mitchem v. State, 53 Ga.App. 280, 185 S.E. 367. As the evidence supports the verdict the general grounds are without merit.
2. Also lacking in merit is the contention that statements made by defendant without prior Miranda warnings would not be admissible for impeachment purposes.
"If on the trial of his case the defendant takes the witness stand and swears to a state of facts contrary to his prior statements, they may be given in evidence solely for purposes of impeachment, the burden being on the court to caution the jury that such evidence is to be considered only for the purpose of assessing the defendant's credibility and not to establish his guilt of the offense for which he is on trial; however, where the evidence is not offered solely for this purpose nor does the trial judge instruct the jury to consider it solely for purposes of impeachment, its admission is error.' Colbert v. State, 124 Ga.App. 283(2), 183 S.E.2d 476.
In offering this evidence the state sought to show that defendant's testimony was not credible. Since the trial judge instructed the jury as to how it should consider such evidence offered for impeachment and labeled this particular evidence as impeachment evidence, the guidelines set forth in Colbert have been satisfied. As was said in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226, 91 S.Ct. 643, 646, 28 L.Ed.2d 1: 'The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. American Cas. Co.
... ... The various defendants moved for summary judgment and for dismissal for failure to state a claim. On June 4, 1973, the trial court heard argument on various outstanding motions, and entered an order dismissing on the basis of the statute ... ...
-
Leonard v. State
...the question of admissibility of the statement because of the lack of a proper warning, this court held in Hancock v. State, 131 Ga.App. 485(2), 206 S.E.2d 104; and Gale v. State, 138 Ga.App. 261, 264, 226 S.E.2d 264, 266, "that statements made by the defendant without prior Miranda warning......
-
Gale v. State
...his weapon, and bears on the question of his intent at the time of both the original and subsequent shots. We held in Hancock v. State, 131 Ga.App. 485(2), 206 S.E.2d 104 that statements made by the defendant without prior Miranda warnings would be admissible for the limited purpose of impe......
-
Farley v. State
...124 Ga.App. 283(2), 183 S.E.2d 476. This is true even in the absence of a showing of compliance with Miranda. Hancock v. State, 131 Ga.App. 485, 487(2), 206 S.E.2d 104. See Williams v. State, 239 Ga. 12, 14(4), 235 S.E.2d 504; Alexander v. State, 138 Ga.App. 618, 620(2), 226 S.E.2d Appellan......