Harris v. State

Decision Date03 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 39792,39792
PartiesAlton HARRIS v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Bruce W. Kirbo, Jr., E.J. Perry, III, Bainbridge, for Alton harris.

Gilbert J. Murrah, Dist. Atty., Bainbridge, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARKE, Justice.

Alton Harris was convicted of the murder of Jane Scott in Decatur County and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appointed attorneys have filed a motion to withdraw from the case on the basis that any appeal would be frivolous. They have filed a brief outlining possible contentions of Harris on appeal. Harris has been provided with a copy of this brief. We grant counsel's motion and affirm the trial court. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We have carefully reviewed the record and transcript in this case and conclude that the jury was authorized to find that following an afternoon spent on the bank of the Flint River consuming great quantities of alcohol, the defendant and the victim returned home and fell into an argument concerning whether the victim was too drunk to cook supper. The victim called the defendant names and they began to physically fight or wrestle. Travis Sanders, a boy who had spent the day with the couple, was in the house and testified to these events. He testified that after the fight began, he went outside and shortly thereafter heard a shot. A detective who talked with Travis on the evening of the shooting testified that the boy told him that he saw defendant point the gun at the victim. Travis denied this on the witness stand.

Defendant's version of the shooting is that it was accidental. He contends that he was moving the shotgun from the bedroom and met the victim in the hall where she, being startled, panicked and tried to grab the gun. The gun went off.

The court charged the jury as to involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, accident, and murder. The jury found defendant guilty of murder.

Counsel for defendant, in their brief in support of the motion to withdraw, raise two possible errors which might be raised on appeal. The first of these is the court's allowing the district attorney to cross-examine Travis Sanders. It is now the rule that knowledge of a prior inconsistent statement by a party's witness which contradicts testimony just given constitutes sufficient entrapment so that the party may impeach his witness by use of the prior statement. Davis v. State, 249 Ga. 309, 290 S.E.2d 273 (1982). Proof of surprise is no longer necessary and is, indeed, irrelevant. Therefore, there was no error in the court's allowing cross-examination of Travis Sanders.

The second possible enumeration raised by counsel is the court's failure to give defendant's requested charge on intoxication which was, in relevant part: "[I]f, because of the influence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tucker v. Zant
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 20 Enero 1984
    ...Clark v. State, 245 Ga. 629, 266 S.E.2d 466, 469 (1980). "[V]oluntary intoxication is no excuse for a crime...." Harris v. State, 250 Ga. 889, 302 S.E.2d 104, 105 (1983). Cain's decision not to rely heavily on Tucker's intoxication as an exculpatory factor was based on his experience that "......
  • Grayer v. State, 72953
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 20 Febrero 1987
    ...grounds, 251 Ga. 615, 307 S.E.2d 910 (1983). Accord Gilbreath v. State, 247 Ga. 814, 830(13), 279 S.E.2d 650 (1981); Harris v. State, 250 Ga. 889, 890, 302 S.E.2d 104 (1983); Faircloth v. State, 175 Ga.App. 130(1), 332 S.E.2d 686 (1985). Furthermore, absent a written request, a correct char......
  • Harriman v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 19 Abril 1984
    ...by that witness which contradicted testimony the witness had just given." Id. at 314, 290 S.E.2d 273. See also Harris v. State, 250 Ga. 889, 302 S.E.2d 104 (1983). Judgment BANKE, P.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1991
    ...Fred Vineyard, by means of leading questions so that the State could impeach Vineyard by use of his prior statement. Harris v. State, 250 Ga. 889, 302 S.E.2d 104 (1983). 5. After his conviction and sentence, appellant's trial counsel were replaced by his current counsel. On motion for new t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT