Hulsey v. State, 28927
| Decision Date | 26 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28927,28927 |
| Citation | 233 Ga. 261,210 S.E.2d 797 |
| Parties | Jerry Wade HULSEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Pittman, Kinney, Kemp, Pickell & Avrett, H. Greely Joiner, Jr., Barnes & Little, Thomas M. Finn, Dalton, for appellant.
Samuel J. Brantley, Dist. Atty., Dalton, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant was convicted for having committed three murders, all of them having occurred practically simultaneously, and he has appealed. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His sole defense in the convicting court was insanity at the time of the commission of the homicides.
Eight alleged errors have been enumerated in this court. We have examined all of them very carefully; we conclude that all of them, individually and collectively, do not warrant a reversal of the judgment below; and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
We deem it appropriate to treat only two of the enumerated errors in this opinion.
1. The contention is made that the evidence does not support the finding of the jury that the appellant was not insane at the time of the commission of the homicide. The evidence on this issue, though in conflict, was very close. A psychiatrist testified that, in his opinion, appellant did not know right from wring at the time of the commission of the homicide. Another psychiatrist testified that, in his opinion, appellant probably did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the homicide. Lay witnesses testified to the contrary. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty rendered by the jury, and the evidence here did not require a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. See Grace v. State, 231 Ga. 113, 200 S.E.2d 248 (1973); Guest v. State, 230 Ga. 569, 198 S.E.2d 158 (1972); Clark v. State, 224 Ga. 311, 161 S.E.2d 836 (1968); and Ross v. State, 217 Ga. 569, 124 S.E.2d 280 (1962).
2. The other enumerated error relates to the charge of the court. The trial judge charged the jury the provisions of Code Ann. §§ 27-1503, 88-506.7. These statutes prescribe the actions to be taken by the trial judge if a jury returns a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The appellant argues that charging these statutes in their totality puts pressure on a jury to bring in a finding of guilty, and that such a charge is harmful error requiring a reversal. The state argues that charging these statutes in full amounts merely to an explanation of the meaning of a verdict of 'not guilty because of mental irresponsibility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act,' and that charging these statutes in their entirety is not harmful error.
In Sanford v. State, 217 Ga. 825, 125 S.E.2d 478 (1962) this court held that it is mandatory to charge the first part of Code Ann. § 27-1503 relating to the form of the jury's verdict in an 'insanity at the time of the commission of the act' case. In Sanford the remainder of Code Ann. § 27-1503 was not involved or alluded to.
However, in Pierce v. State, 231 Ga. 731, 204 S.E.2d 159 (1974) only the first part of Code Ann. § 27-1503 was charged, and the appellant in that case argued that the trial court committed error in not charging this statutory provision in its entirety. Pierce pointed out that this statutory provision contains matters not pertinent to the jury's determination of guilt or innocence and said: 'It would be inappropriate to give the entire section in charge to the jury and the trial court properly did not do so.'
Therefore, we must answer the question: Though we have said it is inappropriate to charge the latter part of Code Ann. § 27-1503, relating to the consequences of such a verdict by the jury, does the charging of the latter portion of the statute amount to harmful error requiring a reversal? We conclude that charging the latter part of Code Ann. §§ 27-1503, 88-506.7 in such a case, though inappropriate, does not amount to harmful error requiring a reversal of the judgment.
We point out that the better practice is to charge only the mandatory part of Code Ann. § 27-1503 as stated in Sanford v. State, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except GUNTER and INGRAM, JJ., who dissent.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coker v. State
...in view of the stage of the proceeding when this instruction was given, it was less harmful then the instruction in Hulsey v. State, 233 Ga. 261, 262, 210 S.E.2d 797, 799 where the trial judge charged the jury the provisions of Code Ann. §§ 27-1503, 88-506.7 prescribing the actions to be ta......
-
Strickland v. State
...error is without merit. of insanity. Such matters are inappropriate for [247 Ga. 226] inclusion in the court's charge. Hulsey v. State, 233 Ga. 261, 210 S.E.2d 797 (1974). For the same reasons of policy, they are inappropriate for the defense's closing argument. The thirty-first enumeration......
-
Berryhill v. State
...to be its only source of the law to be applied and instructed the jury in accord with Code Ann. § 27-1503. See also Hulsey v. State, 233 Ga. 261, 210 S.E.2d 797 (1974). The jury has no function in a motion for mistrial. Therefore, there is no right to argue the motion in the presence of the......
-
Harris v. State
...v. State, 236 Ga. 378, 384, 223 S.E.2d 803, 808 (1976), 'This issue has been decided adversely to appellant in Hulsey v. State, 233 Ga. 261, 262, 210 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1974), which held that to charge the latter part of Code Ann. Sec. 27-1503 'though inappropriate, does not amount to harmful......