Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 43566,43566 |
| Parties | HICKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Dist. Atty., J. David Fowler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomaston, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant, Robert Karl Hicks, was convicted by a Spalding County jury of malice murder and sentenced to death. We affirm. 1
Early in the evening of July 13, 1985, the victim, Toni Rivers, drove to an area on Rawls Road to meet a friend with whom she planned to visit Callaway Gardens. When the friend arrived, the victim's automobile was there, but the victim was not.
At about 8:00 p.m. that evening, a resident of Blanton Mill Road heard a loud scream from a nearby pasture area, and then a woman's voice saying, "Don't do that." He saw a car parked near the end of his driveway and walked to it. From there, he looked over a fence, through a gap in the woods, and into the pasture, where he saw someone lying on the ground and saw someone else "jump from the other side [and then] hunker down."
He flagged down two men driving by in a pickup and told them to call the police, that something was going on in the pasture.
The two men, Robbie McCune and Charles Garner, heard screams themselves, and, looking toward the pasture, saw a shirtless man with blond hair and a black beard bending over and making stabbing motions. Garner testified that as the man straightened up, he wiped something off and put it into his pocket.
Garner and McCune got the license number of the car parked by the side of the road and drove away to find a telephone. As they did, they saw the blond male exit the woods, get into his car, drive a few yards up the road, and stop. (The car had run out of gas.)
Garner and McCune found a telephone at the first house down the road, called the sheriff, and returned just in time to see the blond male climb into the back of a black pickup that had stopped to give him a ride. A deputy sheriff approached the area and McCune flagged him down. He told the deputy that the man he had called about was in the back of the other pickup. Meanwhile, Garner got out and ran to the pasture to find the woman.
Sheriff's deputy Chuck Hudson testified that Garner and McCune Hudson was informed by the driver, whom he knew, that the man in the back had asked for a ride to a gas station.
Hudson asked the man, whom he later identified as the defendant, if he knew anything about a girl or if he had heard anything in the area. The defendant answered negatively. Hudson offered to help the defendant with his car problems, and told him that if "everything was all right, I'd help him get some gas and get his car going." Then, Hudson testified, "Mr. Hicks came down off the truck and started to get in the back of my patrol car, and I made him stop, and I searched him." Hudson found a "folding pocket knife" in the defendant's right front pocket, that was covered in a "dark red substance that appeared to be blood--fresh blood."
Meanwhile, Garner had found the victim, nude from the waist down and covered with blood. She told him she was dying. When Hudson and another deputy arrived at the scene, she begged for help, saying she could not breathe. She clawed at the ground making choking noises until just before the EMT's arrived, when she stopped moving. She soon died.
The victim had "five large, gaping lacerations of the throat ..., an open gash on the abdomen ... and eight stab wounds." She died from a near-total loss of blood.
Inside the defendant's automobile, deputy Hudson discovered a pair of women's shorts, a bloody pair of men's socks, a pair of sandals, and a key ring with the initials "T.R."
Blood on the seat of the car, and on the defendant's pants, socks and knife, was identified as being consistent with that of the victim.
1. In enumerations one through four and 24, Hicks argues that the evidence does not support the conviction and that his motion for directed verdict and his motion for new trial on this ground should have been granted. We disagree, and find the evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66(2), 295 S.E.2d 727 (1982).
2. In his 5th enumeration, Hicks argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted on the ground that the arrest and the searches and seizures were unsupported by probable cause. We find no error.
Deputy Hudson was fully authorized by the circumstances to conduct a pat-down search of the defendant for weapons. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See Devier v Aside from the knife discovered on the defendant's person, the only items seized came from the defendant's car. After finding the victim in the area from where Garner and McCune had heard the screams and had seen the defendant making stabbing motions before emerging from the woods, and after discovering on the person of the defendant a bloody knife, deputy Hudson looked into the defendant's car and observed items of women's clothing. The subsequent entry into the automobile was supported by probable cause. See Speight v. State, 159 Ga.App. 5(2), 282 S.E.2d 651 (1981). 2
State, 253 Ga. 604(7a), 323 S.E.2d 150 (1984), and cits.
3. In his 6th enumeration, the defendant argues that the court erred by denying the defendant (1) an independent analysis of the blood samples, (2) funds to obtain expert assistance for his challenge to the jury pools, and (3) funds to obtain expert assistance on his motion for change of venue.
As to the blood samples, the trial court offered the defendant an opportunity to have the state crime lab personnel perform any desired additional tests, and specifically left open the possibility of hiring a forensic expert if the defendant could show a necessity therefor. We find no abuse of discretion here, or in the denials of funds on the other matters. See Spivey v. State, 253 Ga. 187(9), 319 S.E.2d 420 (1984).
4. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant's motion for a daily transcript. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216(3), 215 S.E.2d 223 (1975).
5. In his 8th enumeration, Hicks states that he "made a motion for incidental expenses, including the cost of a haircut and funds for some civilian clothing to wear at trial," and that the trial court denied the motion. He argues that this denial violated his rights "pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Georgia and the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."
At the hearing on the motion, the defense attorney stated that the defendant's mother could cut his hair if the sheriff would let her, but the defendant had no suitable courtroom attire. The district attorney suggested, "Your Honor, if [the defense attorney will] come by my church sometime, I think we can probably find something in the clothing closet." When the defense attorney responded, "That's a deal," the trial judge overruled the motion. The issue was never again raised.
It does not appear from the record that the defendant was denied suitable clothing or that he was unable to get his hair cut. Therefore, whatever the parameters of a defendant's right to a suitable courtroom appearance, the defendant has failed to show a violation of that right. Compare State v. Pike, 253 Ga. 304, 320 S.E.2d 355 (1984).
6. In view of the minimal pre-trial publicity and the small number of prospective jurors excused for cause, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant's motion for a change of venue. See e.g., Cargill v. State, 255 Ga. 616(10), 340 S.E.2d 891 (1986); Spivey v. State, 253 Ga. 187, 319 S.E.2d 420 (1984).
7. Nor did the trial court err by overruling the defendant's jury challenges. Blacks, whites, men and women were all well represented on both the grand and traverse jury lists. 3 Hicks' assertion that "Age ... has become a recognizable class for purposes of jury pool selection" is incorrect if he means to say that groups defined by age are now cognizable as a 8. Contrary to the defendant's 11th enumeration, the trial court did not err by refusing to require the state to elect between proceeding on a malice murder theory or on a felony murder theory. Dunn v. State, 251 Ga. 731(5), 309 S.E.2d 370 (1983).
matter of law. On the contrary, the case he cites for this proposition states that it is a "question of fact ... [which] depends upon the time and location of the trial." Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir.1983). (Emphasis supplied.) Hicks has failed to establish the cognizability of any age (or socioeconomic) group, and has failed to show that any such group was significantly underrepresented on the Spalding County jury lists. See Parks v. State, 254 Ga. 403(6a), 330 S.E.2d 686 (1985)
9. Just before the voir dire began, the defendant objected (outside the presence of the jury) to his being shackled during the trial. The trial court responded that the defendant had previously escaped from custody while awaiting the trial of this case and had on several occasions stated to various persons "that he intended to avoid trial, that he was going to escape, [and] that he would knock down a deputy and run from the court." The court stated that for the protection of courtroom personnel and, as well, the defendant himself, it was necessary to shackle the defendant in order to prevent an escape attempt. The court added that, "in order to prevent jurors and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. Tate
...Strickland prejudice in an ineffective assistance claim regarding the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial. Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 730 (23), 352 S.E.2d 762 (1987) (citation and punctuation omitted); Ford v. State, 255 Ga. 81, 90 (8) (i), 335 S.E.2d 567 (1985) ("[W]here the prosec......
-
Trammel v. Bradberry
...(raising mental status in sentencing phase as mitigation waives the psychiatric privilege and Fifth Amendment); Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 721-722(14), 352 S.E.2d 762 (1987) (privilege waiver by plea of insanity as to examination by court-appointed expert and as to Fifth Amendment). The r......
-
Hill v. State
...845 (1989); Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748, 375 S.E.2d 442 (1988); Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243, 357 S.E.2d 48 (1987); Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 352 S.E.2d 762 (1987); Cook v. State, 255 Ga. 565, 340 S.E.2d 843 (1986); Walker v. State, 254 Ga. 149, 327 S.E.2d 475 (1985); Mincey v. State, 251......
-
Kinsman v. State
...jury should find the defendant "not guilty." 4. The court did not err by admitting photographs of the murder victim. Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715(13), 352 S.E.2d 762 (1987). 5. A paperweight recovered from the apartment shared by Kinsman and co-defendant Morgan was identified by its owner as......
-
Death Penalty Law - Therese M. Day
...of discretion in choosing between life imprisonment or death.'" Gissendaner, 272 Ga. at 713, 532 S.E.2d at 688 (quoting Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 730, 352 S.E.2d 762, 778 (1987)) (citation omitted). 34. Tollette, 280 Ga. at 104, 621 S.E.2d at 748. 35. Id. at 105, 621 S.E.2d at 748. 36. I......
-
Georgia's New Expert Witness Rule: Daubert & More
...outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." ' ") (quoting Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 720, 352 S.E.2d 762, 771 (1987)). 33. O.C.G.A. 24-9-67.1(c)(2) (2005). 34. Id. 35. If a hearing is held in federal court, it is typically held pursuant ......
-
Hope for the Best and Prepare for the Worst: the Capital Defender's Guide to Reciprocal Discovery in the Sentencing Phase of Georgia Death Penalty Trials
...75. O.C.G.A. §§ 17-10-30(b)(8), (7), (4) (Supp. 2007). 76. O.C.G.A. § 17-10-30(c) (Supp. 2007). 77. See id. 78. See Hicks v. State, 352 S.E.2d 762, 776 (Ga. 1987). 79. See Green v. Zant, 738 F.2d 1529, 1539 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting the Supreme Court's approval of using prior criminal convic......