Harrison v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. S89A0251,S89A0251 |
| Citation | 384 S.E.2d 643,259 Ga. 486 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
E. Earl Seals, Lagrange, for Harrison.
William G. Hamrick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Lagrange and Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Leonora Grant, for the State.
The appellant, Bobby Harrison III, was convicted of the murder of Glen Johnson, and he was given a sentence of life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant argues that there was insufficient corroboration of the testimony of his accomplice, that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the jury in finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the cross-examination of a defense witness was conducted in an impermissible manner. For reasons which follow, we find these arguments to be without merit, and we thus affirm. 1
Approximately two weeks prior to the victim's death, the appellant and Wendell Morris were involved in a street fight. At that time, Alan Brumbrey accompanied the appellant. Wendell Morris testified that although the victim, who was Wendell Morris' cousin, was not present when the foregoing altercation began, he arrived on the scene before the fight was over. Walter Brumbrey, who is Alan Brumbrey's brother, testified that Alan had told him that the victim had held a broken glass bottle on him in order to prevent him from helping the appellant when the appellant was being beaten up by Morris.
On or about June 18, 1988, at approximately 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., the victim went to a "shot house" in order to purchase a drink. Seated in the living room at the time of the victim's arrival were the appellant, and Alan and Walter Brumbrey. According to Nina Harris, who lives in the house, they were discussing the fight between the appellant and Wendell Morris. The appellant said that, "somebody had hit him in the head with a brick, and if he couldn't get the uncle back he was going to get the cousin back." The appellant and Alan Brumbrey were overheard saying,
At approximately 10:45 p.m., the victim left the house, and, within the next five minutes, the appellant and the Brumbreys also left. They were yelling at the victim, saying "hold up, hold up." And, Alan Brumbrey was overheard saying, "We going to get him." Appellant and the Brumbreys caught up with the victim; shortly thereafter, Walter Brumbrey left the group, and the remaining three continued walking down the street in the direction of a recreation center.
Alan Brumbrey was also indicted for the murder of Glen Johnson. However, he pleaded guilty to a charge of voluntary manslaughter, and he testified against the appellant at trial.
He testified that they planned to "rough [the victim] up, ... beat him up." They told him that they had some cocaine, and they convinced him to go behind the recreation center with them on the pretense of using the cocaine. When they got behind the recreation center, the appellant took a swing at the victim, who attempted to run. The appellant caught up with him, and tripped him; he then got on top of him and began hitting him with his fist and stomping him. The victim got up and again began running; as the appellant was pursuing him, the victim fell down in the area of a creek. When the appellant reached the victim, he began hitting him again. Brumbrey arrived on the scene and suggested that they leave. The appellant then attempted to pick the victim up, and he either threw the victim or kicked the victim into some bushes. The appellant and Brumbrey then left.
Three days later, on June 21, 1988, the victim's body was found in the creek behind the recreation center, and the area in which the body was found was muddy. Debra Jones, who is Alan Brumbrey's girlfriend, testified that when the appellant and Alan Brumbrey left her house on the day of the victim's death, their clothes were clean, and when they returned, the appellant's clothes were In cross-examining this witness, defense counsel established that the appellant worked for a construction company, and he suggested that the hardened material on his clothes consisted of asphalt.
The medical examiner performing an autopsy on the victim testified that it was his opinion that the victim died as a result of "a blunt-force injury to the head."
The appellant testified at trial that Alan Brumbrey had told him that he was going to beat up the victim. He further testified that the three of them left the shot house, and they smoked some marijuana together. According to the appellant, he then left Brumbrey and the victim, who continued walking down the street. Finally, the appellant testified that he did not fight the victim, although when he saw Brumbrey later that evening, Brumbrey had blood on his shoes.
Other evidence will be discussed insofar as is necessary for a resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
"The rule is well established that, to sustain a conviction in a felony case upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating facts or circumstances, which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty, and more than sufficient to merely cast on the defendant a grave suspicion of guilt." Price v. State, 208 Ga. 695(3a) (69 SE2d 253); Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455(2) (111 SE2d 70); Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 778 (164 SE2d 808).
Slocum v. State, 230 Ga. 762, 764(2), 199 S.E.2d 202 (1973).
However, Carter v. State, 237 Ga. 617, 618 (229 S.E.2d 411) (1976). Contrary to appellant's assertions, Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 586 (247 S.E.2d 57) (1978).
Berry v. State, 248 Ga. 430, 432(1), 283 S.E.2d 888 (1981).
We hold that the evidence reviewed earlier in this opinion was legally sufficient to directly connect the appellant with, and give rise to an inference that he participated in, the murder of Glen Johnson. Cf. Askew v. State, 135 Ga.App. 56(2), 217 S.E.2d 385 (1975) and cit.
3. The appellant's final argument is that the trial court erred in examining a defense witness, and in allowing the state to cross-examine the defense witness, in regard to the reasons underlying the witness' past incarceration, as well as his incarceration at the time of the appellant's trial.
As part of his case-in-chief, the appellant called Danny Allen to the stand as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haynes v. State
...Ga. 230, 233(4), 357 S.E.2d 85 (1987). Accord Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 799-800(12), 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983); cf. Harrison v. State, 259 Ga. 486(3), 384 S.E.2d 643 (1989); Owens v. State, 251 Ga. 313(1), 305 S.E.2d 102 (1983). 4. Haynes also argues the trial court abused its discretion i......
-
State v. Hall
...the witness either by examination of the witness or by evidence otherwise adduced." Utah R. Evid. 608(c); see Harrison v. State, 259 Ga. 486, 384 S.E.2d 643, 646 (1989) (holding that prosecutor properly impeached defense witness for bias by showing "criminal charges surrounding his incarcer......
-
Isaac v. State
...way to impeach a witness is to show a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude, not an arrest. See generally Harrison v. State, 259 Ga. 486, 489, 384 S.E.2d 643 (1989). When counsel for one of Isaac's co-defendants argued that it was "premature" for the court categorically to forbid all qu......
-
Burton v. State
...sufficiency of the corroboration evidence is peculiarly a matter for the jury to determine." (Citation omitted.) Harrison v. State, 259 Ga. 486, 488(1), 384 S.E.2d 643 (1989). Thatcher's testimony, which implicated Burton as a party to the crimes at Boyd's residence (see OCGA § 16-2-20), wa......