Haynes v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98A0090,S98A0090 |
| Citation | 269 Ga. 181,496 S.E.2d 721 |
| Parties | , 98 FCDR 819 HAYNES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Cerbone, Asst. Dist. Atty., Savannah, Elizabeth Lewis Jaeger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, for the State.
Jonathan Haynes was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in the shooting death of Victor Battle. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.
Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Haynes and his friends had been playing cards and drinking gin at the apartment of Sharon Williams. Battle joined them for a short time. After he left, the others noticed that a musical compact disk was missing. Believing that Battle had stolen the CD, Haynes and others left the apartment to find him. They located Battle and brought him back to Williams' apartment, where they strip-searched and then beat him. Battle denied taking the CD, and they did not find it on his person. Nevertheless, he was taken outside where Haynes and his friends threw him to the ground and continued to kick and beat him.
Williams testified that she watched the beating from her front porch and was then told by a friend of Haynes' to go inside because "they got iron and were fixing to smoke [Battle]." She observed gunfire from her window, heard five shots, and saw that Haynes was standing closest to the victim. Haynes then returned to Williams' apartment where he washed his hands with bleach.
Haynes' co-defendant told police in a custodial statement that during the beating, Haynes obtained a gun from one of the onlookers and shot the victim six or seven times. The co-defendant testified at trial, recanting that statement. Haynes also confessed to authorities that he shot the victim with a .38 revolver. But Haynes, too, recanted his confession during trial, instead implicating his brother.
The victim died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds fired from a Colt .38 revolver.
1. The evidence was sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to find Haynes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.
2. Haynes asserts that evidence of his co-defendant's custodial statement constituted a violation of the Bruton rule. Since there was no Bruton objection at trial, he is foreclosed from raising this claim on appeal. See generally Ledford v. State, 264 Ga. 60(4), 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994). Nevertheless, "[o]nce appellant's co-defendant took the stand and answered questions concerning his statement, he was subject to cross-examination by the appellant and the Bruton rule had no application." Depree v. State, 246 Ga. 240, 242(1), 271 S.E.2d 155 (1980).
3. Haynes asserts that the court committed reversible error in refusing to bifurcate the prosecution of the convicted felon firearms charge from the remaining offenses.
Bifurcation of charges should be denied where the count of the indictment charging the possession offense " 'might be material to a more serious charge--as, for example, where the offense of murder and possession are charged in one indictment, and the possession charge might conceivably become the underlying felony to support a felony murder conviction on the malice murder count of the indictment.' " Jones v. State, 265 Ga. 138, 139(2), 454 S.E.2d 482 (1995), quoting Head v. State, 253 Ga. 429, 431(3)(a), 322 S.E.2d 228 (1984). The present indictment charged Haynes, inter alia, with malice murder, felony murder with the predicate felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated assault. Under Jones, bifurcation of the charges was not authorized.
4. Haynes asserts that the trial court erred in allowing introduction into evidence of a custodial statement made by him after he asserted his right to an attorney.
The uncontroverted evidence at a Jackson v. Denno hearing established that shortly after Haynes was taken to the police station, Miranda warnings were administered, he acknowledged that he understood his rights, and he elected to make a statement to the investigating officers. In this first statement, which was transcribed and signed, Haynes made no mention of the shooting. When the officers thereafter questioned him about conflicting statements given by other witnesses, Haynes invoked his right to counsel. The questioning ceased immediately, and the two officers left Haynes alone in the interview room. Another officer thereafter entered the interview room to get something from a refrigerator and was surprised to find Haynes in there. That officer testified that he did not initiate any conversation with Haynes, but that Haynes volunteered that his previous statement had been untrue because he had not wanted to implicate his cousin. The officer asked Haynes if he wanted to make corrections to that statement, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...hearing, and it instead “may look to all the evidence of record in determining the admissibility of a confession.” Haynes v. State, 269 Ga. 181, 184(4), 496 S.E.2d 721 (1998) (citation omitted). See also Stapleton v. State, 235 Ga. 513, 516(1), 220 S.E.2d 269 (1975). At trial, Butler testif......
-
Sharpe v. State
...(1998). "Since there was no Bruton objection at trial, he is foreclosed from raising this claim on appeal. [Cit.]" Haynes v. State, 269 Ga. 181, 182(2), 496 S.E.2d 721 (1998). 10. Shipman urges that the trial court erroneously interfered with the trial process by giving legal advice to Ms. ......
-
Mack v. State
...right of an accused to be free from uncounseled interrogation.(Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 489, 405 S.E.2d 657. Cf. Haynes v. State, 269 Ga. 181(4), 496 S.E.2d 721 (1998) (defendant did voluntarily initiate contact where, after he invoked his right to counsel and officers left the room, an......
-
Russell v. State
...reinitiation of communication with law enforcement with the express intent to talk about Waller's murder. See Haynes v. State , 269 Ga. 181, 183 (4), 496 S.E.2d 721 (1998) (defendant determined to have reinitiated communications following assertion of right to counsel, where interrogation c......