Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 37756,37756 |
| Parties | HILL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. Vernon Belcher, Greenville, for Warren Hill, Jr.
Art Mallory, III Dist. Atty., Marc E. Acree, Asst. Dist. Atty., LaGrange, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Nicholas G. Dumich, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for murder and aggravated assault. A non-jury trial was held, and he was found guilty on both charges. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder and a concurrent sentence of 10 years for the aggravated assault. Appellant raises two enumerations in this appeal, and we affirm.
1. In his first enumeration, appellant contends the verdict is "contrary to the law and to the facts." We cannot agree.
From the evidence adduced at trial, a rational trier of fact was authorized to find the following: At approximately 10:00 p.m., on November 11, 1980, appellant arrived at the residence of Robert and Vera Favors. He had come to order his twelve year old niece, Shirley Bonner, to go home. Appellant did not like his niece spending time at the Favors because he thought various improper activities regularly took place there.
About the time of appellant's arrival, Vera Favors spoke with Shirley's mother over the telephone. Mrs. Bonner told Mrs. Favors that Shirley could stay at the residence until she arrived.
Instead of following her uncle's command, Shirley went into a bedroom where Mrs. Favor's daughter, Sheila, was reading her Bible and two or three others were watching a movie on television. Appellant, who on previous occasions threatened to whip his niece if she did not stay away from the Favors' residence, twice entered the room and left. Sheila then closed the door. The door to the bedroom was missing a doorknob, and was now jammed shut.
By this time, Mrs. Bonner had arrived. She borrowed a fork from Vera Favors to pry open the bedroom door. Mrs. Bonner was unable to do so, and Vera Favors went to assist her.
Appellant was standing in the hallway drinking beer. He exchanged words with Mrs. Favors, who told him that he didn't have any business attempting to control his niece while she was visiting Sheila with Mrs. Bonner's permission. Mrs. Favors and appellant had argued on previous occasions, and were generally on bad terms.
Mrs. Favors stepped into the bathroom to wash her face. As she exited the bathroom, appellant grabbed her from behind and stabbed her in the hand, arm and breast with a hunting knife. He then pushed her into a bedroom.
Appellant proceeded to the closed bedroom door and kicked it in. The door fell on Sheila. Appellant entered the room, jumped on top of Sheila and stabbed her in the chest with a knife. Sheila was pulled away by her cousin Clarence. She ran down the hall, bleeding.
Sheila was rushed to Meriwether Memorial Hospital and pronounced dead at approximately 10:30 p.m. The cause of death was determined to be "a puncture wound to the left chest which caused massive amounts of internal bleeding."
We must conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see Holt v. State, 247 Ga. 648, 278 S.E.2d 390 (1981); Wade v. State, 157 Ga.App. 296, 277 S.E.2d 292 (1981).
2. In his remaining enumeration, appellant asserts that the trial court "erred in overruling Defense Council's Motion for a Directed Verdict as a result of the [state] not furnishing ... the material and information
requested in a [Brady] motion ..." Appellant relies upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
We find no reversible error under Brady. Appellant first raised the state's alleged non-compliance with the Brady motion after the trial was concluded. The district attorney stated in his place that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...of the court to make the in camera inspection, we find no error. See Reed v. State, 249 Ga. 52, 55-56, 287 S.E.2d 205; Hill v. State, 248 Ga. 304, 305(2), 283 S.E.2d 252; Cooper v. State, 163 Ga.App. 482, 484(3), 295 S.E.2d 161; Duncan v. State, 163 Ga.App. 148, 150(3), 294 S.E.2d 365. 3. T......
-
Boatright v. State
...tapes for his own inspection is without merit; " 'this is not required under the holding in Brady or its progeny.' " See Hill v. State, 248 Ga. 304, 305, 283 S.E.2d 252. Under the attendant circumstances the trial court's prior examination in camera of the State's entire file, including a c......
-
Cromer v. State
...Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974), and this burden has not been satisfied in the instant case." Hill v. State, 248 Ga. 304(2), 283 S.E.2d 252 (1981). Judgment All the Justices concur, except SMITH, J., who concurs in the judgment only, and WELTNER, J., who concurs speci......
-
Reed v. State
...inspection. Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974). We adhere to this rule. Here, as in the case of Hill v. State, 248 Ga. 304, 305, 283 S.E.2d 252 (1981), the "appellant has not come forward with anything to suggest a suppression of material, exculpatory information by the ......