Harrison v. State

• Decision Date: 07 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 44327,44327
• Citation: 361 S.E.2d 149,257 Ga. 528
• Parties: HARRISON v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 149

361 S.E.2d 149

257 Ga. 528

HARRISON v. The STATE.

No. 44327.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 7, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied Oct. 28, 1987.

William I. Sykes, Jr., Gainesville, for Aden Harrison, Jr.

Andrew C. Fuller, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MARSHALL, Chief Justice.

This is a death penalty case, here on direct appeal, for review under the Unified Appeal Procedure, 252 Ga. A-13 et seq., and for a sentence review pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.

Facts

The victim, Reggie Dorsey, a companion, Marvin Mize, and a number of other persons spent the early evening hours of March 17, 1984, at the home of Kenneth Watkins. All but Dorsey and Mize left to go to a nightclub in Gainesville. After they left, Dorsey and Mize prepared to leave when they were approached by two males who were later identified as Aden Harrison, Jr., and Johnny Ware Kimbrough. Harrison, the defendant in this case, carried a shotgun. Dorsey and Mize were forced to lie face down on the ground. Their money was taken. Then, Mize testified, "I heard a shot and then I heard something say 'click, click' and then ... [the other] guy said, hold it, let's go."

Meanwhile, Kenneth Watkins realized that he had left his identification at home, and he and the others returned in time to observe Mize in a prone position, and two men running away. Mize told Watkins that he and Dorsey had been robbed, and that Dorsey had been shot.

The two robbers joined another man in an automobile and sped away. Watkins and his group chased after them in their car.

They got close enough to get the license number of the fleeing automobile. One of its occupants pointed a shotgun at them and they broke off their pursuit, and returned to Watkins' residence, where a Hall County sheriff's deputy had already been summoned.

The license number was broadcast, and a few minutes later an automobile with that tag number was clocked on radar by a state patrolman at 74 m.p.h.

The car was stopped and its occupants, Harrison, Kimbrough, and Lester Shields, were arrested. Bloodstains were observed on the right door handle of the car, and a pump shotgun with a live shell jammed in its chamber was recovered from its interior. The gun was identified by a ballistics examination and comparison as the murder weapon.

Dorsey died as the result of a shotgun blast to the head that fractured all of the bones of his face.

Harrison was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery. The evidence supports the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Enumerations of Error

1. Co-defendants Kimbrough and Shields were tried before Harrison. Shields pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter during his trial, and Kimbrough was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Kimbrough testified at his trial that Harrison killed Dorsey. However, when he was called by the state as its first witness at the sentencing phase of this trial, he testified that Shields, not Harrison, was the actual killer. The state responded by introducing in evidence Kimbrough's previous testimony that Harrison was the triggerman.

Harrison argues that since Kimbrough obviously lied either at this trial or in the previous one, the state improperly obtained a death sentence by the use of perjured testimony. See Fugitt v. State, 251 Ga. 451(1), 307 S.E.2d 471 (1983). Accordingly, Harrison argues, his death sentence must be reversed.

We disagree. Kimbrough's previous testimony is consistent with other evidence in this case. The district attorney had reason to believe that the prior testimony was true and to attempt to elicit that testimony at this trial. When Kimbrough tried to blame Shields, whose case had been disposed of by this time, in an attempt to help Harrison, whose case was still pending, the district attorney had the responsibility and the duty to correct what he reasonably believed to be false and to present the truth. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 270, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).

The jury had the benefit of Kimbrough's present testimony and his previous inconsistent testimony. Neither was kept from the jury, and the jury properly was given the opportunity to decide for itself which version was the truth, and which the fabrication. Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858, 286 S.E.2d 717 (1982).

2. Harrison's trial began two years to the day after he committed the crime. He contends the trial court erred by not granting his motion to dismiss for failure to grant him a speedy trial.

We note that the defendant did not file a demand for trial pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-171. His claim here rests upon the speedy-trial provisions of the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and of Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph XI of the Georgia Constitution.

The appropriate analytical framework here is that set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). Perry v. Mitchell, 253 Ga. 593, 594, 322 S.E.2d 273 (1984).

Barker v. Wingo, supra, identifies four factors relevant to this kind of claim, viz: "(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant." Perry v. Mitchell, supra.

Although the delay in this case was lengthy, it "does not ... evidence that most serious abuse--'A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense ...' Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. at 531 " Perry v. Mitchell, supra 253 Ga. at 594-95, 322 S.E.2d 273.

Since the state sought the death penalty against two of the three co-defendants, it was required to try each of the three separately. OCGA § 17-8-4. Some of the delay here was occasioned by the necessity for separate trials of Harrison's two co-defendants. Moreover, the state had planned to call co-defendant Shields as a witness at Harrison's trial, but he escaped. The state hoped that he would be recaptured in time to testify at Harrison's trial, but to no avail.

Thus, as the trial court pointed out, if anyone was prejudiced by the delay here, it was the state.

Since the defendant did not assert his right to a speedy trial until just before he was tried, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to grant him a speedy trial.

3. Harrison contends that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to reveal to the jury at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial that co-defendant Shields had been allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in exchange for his testimony in the Kimbrough case.

If Shields had testified in the instant case, his conviction, and any plea agreement relating thereto, would have been a relevant subject of cross-examination. Owens v. State, 251 Ga. 313(1), 305 S.E.2d 102 (1983). However, although Shields did testify at Kimbrough's trial, he escaped prior to Harrison's trial, and was unavailable as a witness. As a result, there was no testimony by Shields to discredit.

This is not a case in which an aider and abettor is on trial and the principal has been acquitted. See White v. State, 257 Ga. 236, 356 S.E.2d 875 (1987). The state did not contend here that Shields was the principal and that Harrison was guilty only as a party to a crime committed by Shields. Hence, proof of Shields' guilt was not a necessary element of the state's case against Harrison. Moreover, Shields was not acquitted. He was merely allowed to enter a guilty plea to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, and to armed robbery and attempted armed robbery.

Harrison was allowed to reveal the disposition of Shields' case at the sentencing phase of the trial. The trial court did not err by refusing to allow him to do so at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.

4. The trial court did not err by refusing to give the defendant's requests to charge on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and accident or misfortune. There was no evidence to support these requests. Nor did the trial court err by failing to give other charges in the exact language requested, where the court's charge substantially and adequately covered the principles contained in these requests. Edwards v. State, 255 Ga. 149(1), 335 S.E.2d 869 (1985).

5. "The question whether a defendant is someone whose probable future behavior indicates a need for the most effective means of incapacitation, i.e., the death penalty, is not constitutionally irrelevant. [Cits.] Arguments addressing this question are not improper if based on evidence adduced at trial. [Cits.]" Ross v. State, 254 Ga. 22, 34(7), 326 S.E.2d 194 (1985). It is proper to remind the jury of "the possible consequences" of its verdict. Walker v. State, 254 Ga. 149, 158(19), 327 S.E.2d 475 (1985).

Contrary to the defendant's fifth enumeration of error, the prosecutor did not argue facts not in evidence concerning co-defendant Kimbrough's prior record, nor did the prosecutor err by discussing the issue of the defendant's probable future dangerousness.

Sentence Review

6. The jury found the existence of three statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) The offense of murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of an armed robbery (see OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(2)); (2) The offense of murder was committed by the defendant for the purpose of receiving money (see OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(4)); and (3) "This offense of murder and armed robbery was committed by the defendant knowingly and created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon, to wit: a shotgun, which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person." See OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(3).

The first two...