Hawkins v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0508,A90A0508 |
| Citation | 395 S.E.2d 251,195 Ga.App. 739 |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ronald C. Goulart, Fort Oglethorpe, for appellant.
Ralph Van Pelt, Jr., Dist. Atty., Scott K. Camp, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Stoney Hawkins appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with intent to rape. Held:
1. Hawkins contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal because no rational trier of fact could have found that he was the perpetrator of the crime. Although the transcript shows that the victim of the assault was Hawkins' neighbor who knew Hawkins personally, and she testified that Stoney Hawkins was the person who assaulted her, Hawkins contended that no one had identified him in court as the "Stoney Hawkins" she identified. The transcript also shows, however, that numerous other witnesses testified that Stoney Hawkins was the person who was with the victim on the night in question, and that after the motion was denied, the appellant, Stoney Hawkins, testified and admitted that he was the person with the victim that night.
A motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should only be granted when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. OCGA § 17-9-1(a); Taylor v. State, 252 Ga. 125, 312 S.E.2d 311. On appeal a reviewing court may consider all the evidence in the case (Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 375, 219 S.E.2d 743), and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527, 314 S.E.2d 436. Review of all the evidence in that manner reveals ample evidence (particularly his own testimony) from which any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hawkins was the Stoney Hawkins who was guilty of the offense of aggravated assault with the intent to rape. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
2. Hawkins alleges that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor referred to certain evidence as being incriminating. The transcript shows the comment was made in the presence of the jury during argument on one of appellant's objections and after the defense counsel referred to the evidence as being exculpatory. There was no error here. By its terms OCGA § 17-8-75 does not apply because the evidence in question was admitted in evidence and, further, the comment was a reply to appellant's argument. If counsel argue objections in the presence of the jury, they cannot complain when the opposite party responds with appropriate counter-argument. One cannot complain of a result he procured or aided in causing (Locke v. Vonalt, 189 Ga.App. 783, 787, 377 S.E.2d 696) and induced error is not an appropriate basis for claiming prejudice. Sullens v. State, 239 Ga. 766, 767, 238 S.E.2d 864; Martin v. State, 193 Ga.App. 581, 584, 388 S.E.2d 420.
Furthermore, whether a mistrial should be granted is within the sound discretion of the trial court and this court will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it has abused its discretion. Martin v. State, supra. Accordingly, this enumeration of error is without merit.
3. Hawkins also alleges that the trial court erred by denying another motion for a mistrial when a witness, the sheriff, responded to one of his counsel's questions by stating that another witness said that Hawkins was drunk on the night of the incident. The transcript shows that defense counsel asked the witness, "So, now you are telling us that Mr. Pittman was drunk on the night he gave you the statement?" and the witness replied, Appellant relies on our decision in Boyd v. State, 146 Ga.App. 359, 360, 246 S.E.2d 396, for the proposition that this testimony required a mistrial. Assuming without deciding that this testimony placed the defendant's character in issue, this is nevertheless not the kind of response which inherently requires the grant of a mistrial. See Patterson v. State, 192 Ga.App. 449, 452, 385 S.E.2d 311. Moreover, it cannot be said that the answer was entirely unresponsive since counsel in essence asked the sheriff to clarify what he was telling the court, and the sheriff responded with what he had intended to tell. Counsel are responsible for the responsive answers their questions elicit. See Martin v. State, supra. As the record does not reveal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion, there was no error. Martin v. State, supra; Patterson v. State, supra.
4. Hawkins enumerates as error the trial court sustaining the State's hearsay objection to questions his counsel asked about statements the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Martin
...procured or aided in causing ((cit.)) and induced error is not an appropriate basis for claiming prejudice. (Cits.)' Hawkins v. State, 195 Ga.App. 739 (395 SE2d 251) (1990). Accord Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343(2) (398 SE2d 375) (1990)." Rider v. State, 207 Ga.App. 519(1), 428 S.E.2......
-
Chezem v. State, A91A0018
...a continuance or a mistrial. Appellant cannot complain of a ruling his own procedure or conduct aided in causing. Hawkins v. State, 195 Ga.App. 739(2), 395 S.E.2d 251; compare Hardin v. State, 142 Ga.App. 795, 796(1), 237 S.E.2d 202. Viewing the record in its totality, we conclude, as in Mo......
-
Patterson v. State, A91A1487
...One cannot complain of an error which his own conduct aided in causing. [Cits.]" Id. at 130(2), 290 S.E.2d 333; see Hawkins v. State, 195 Ga.App. 739(2), 395 S.E.2d 251; compare Williams v. State, 195 Ga.App. 376(2), 393 S.E.2d 3. Appellants assert that the trial court erred in failing to g......
-
KDS Properties, Inc. v. Sims
...A party cannot complain of a result which he aided in causing. See Perryman, supra at 790, 423 S.E.2d 673 (1992); Hawkins v. State, 195 Ga.App. 739(2), 395 S.E.2d 251 (1990). Furthermore, the jury in effect apportioned the award of attorney fees and litigation expenses when it found that Hi......