Hogans v. State
| Decision Date | 07 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39944,39944 |
| Parties | HOGANS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John E. Pirkle, Hinesville, for Ceaser Hogan.
Dupont K. Cheney, Dist. Atty., Harrison Kohler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Hinesville, Susan V. Boleyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Caesar Hogans appeals from a conviction of murder with a life sentence. The sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the conviction is not contested. We affirm.
1. On direct examination by the prosecutor, the chief investigator of the sheriff's office testified that he had gone to Danamora, New York, to pick up the appellant, and had brought him back to Liberty County, Georgia. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial or to strike this testimony, on the ground that it raised the inference that the appellant had not returned voluntarily, which could be rebutted only by showing that he was incarcerated in New York, which would tend to put his character in evidence.
Flight is always a circumstance which may be shown and a jury is authorized to take into account in determining guilt or innocence of an accused, and evidence thereof is not inadmissible because it incidentally puts the defendant's character in issue. Hughes v. State, 239 Ga. 393(2), 236 S.E.2d 829 (1977) and cits.; Johnson v. State, 148 Ga.App. 702(1), 252 S.E.2d 205 (1979) and cits. The state did not tender any evidence that the appellant had been convicted of a crime in New York or was in prison in New York. It is highly unlikely that a juror in Hinesville, Georgia, would know "Danamora" as the name of a prison. Therefore, the only way the appellant's character would've been placed in issue is if he had sought to explain flight or concealment by referring to his criminal record. See O'Neal v. State, 239 Ga. 532(2), 238 S.E.2d 73 (1977). Moreover, this issue is rendered academic by the appellant's subsequent testimony in the trial that he had fled to New York because he was afraid of being arrested and charged with murder.
2. The appellant contends that the trial court's charge on flight was not supported by the evidence and was burden-shifting. The charge was authorized by the testimony that the appellant had been brought back from New York, and by the appellant's own admission, under cross-examination, of his flight. The charge is substantially the same as the one approved in Kalb v. State, 195 Ga. 544(3), 25 S.E.2d 24 (1943); Reeves v. State, 241 Ga. 44(3), 243 S.E.2d 24 (1978); and Crenshaw v. State, 244 Ga. 430(3), 260 S.E.2d 344 (1979). We find no error.
3. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the appellant's motion for mistrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolfolk v. State
...which the defendant is being prosecuted. It is well established that evidence of flight is related to the underlying offense, see, e.g., Hogans, supra, and it also cannot be maintained that subsequent possession and use of the murder weapon has no relevance to the underlying murder. Therefo......
-
In re B.R.
...First, flight is always a circumstance which may be considered in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused. Hogan v. State, 251 Ga. 242(1), 304 S.E.2d 699 (1983); accord Woolfolk v. State, 282 Ga. 139, 140(2), n. 2, 644 S.E.2d 828 (2007). Second, the evidence in the case at bar show......
-
Bryson v. State
...thereof is not inadmissible because it incidentally puts the defendant's character in issue.” (Citations omitted.) Hogans v. State, 251 Ga. 242(1), 304 S.E.2d 699 (1983). Notably, Bryson himself relies upon the challenged evidence in support of his defense theory that he fled from the offic......
-
Delgado v. State, A07A1499.
... ... 429, 431(2), 603 S.E.2d 268 (2004); Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676, 680(4), 594 S.E.2d 350 (2004) ... 11. Taylor v. State, 285 Ga.App. 697, 704(4), 647 S.E.2d 381 (2007), citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ... 12. (Citations omitted.) Hogans v. State, 251 Ga. 242(1), 304 S.E.2d 699 (1983) ... 13. See Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180, 182(2), 611 S.E.2d 31 (2005) (Crawford violation is harmless where the improperly admitted testimony "was cumulative of other admissible evidence") (citation omitted); accord Buttram v. State, 280 Ga. 595, ... ...