Humphrey v. State, 40629
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | HILL |
| Citation | 252 Ga. 525,314 S.E.2d 436 |
| Parties | HUMPHREY v. The STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. 40629,40629 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
Page 436
v.
The STATE.
Rehearing Denied May 15, 1984.
Page 437
[252 Ga. 529] Ralph C. Smith, Jr., Smith, Perry & Epps, P.A., Bainbridge, for Joel Darsey Humphrey.
J. Brown Moseley, Dist. Atty., Bainbridge, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
[252 Ga. 525] HILL, Chief Justice.
The defendant was convicted on May 12, 1983, of the murder of Harold "Sonny" Whiddon and for tampering with evidence. He received a life sentence for the murder and one year to be served [252 Ga. 526] concurrently for tampering with the evidence. 1
For a short time before his death, the victim lived with the defendant at the defendant's farm. On the evening of January 25, 1983, the defendant and the victim went to a fishfry in Bainbridge where they ate, drank alcohol, played pool, and helped clean up. They left about midnight, rode around town for a while, and then went back to the farm. According to the defendant's testimony, he decided to go to his father's house for the night since he knew the victim was not ready to go to sleep. He got out of his Bronco and opened the door to the trailer for the victim. He got back into the Bronco and started backing out when he heard something hit the Bronco. He said he saw the victim coming out of the trailer, shooting at him. He stopped, got his rifle from the gunrack, put a shell in the chamber, got out of the Bronco and shot the victim.
The defendant then dragged the body under a fence and into a field behind the trailer. He took a water hose and tried to wash the blood from the ground. The defendant then went to his father's house and told his father and brother that he had shot and killed the victim. The police were notified.
The police arrived at the father's house at approximately 2:30 a.m. They took the defendant's .300 magnum rifle and placed him in their car. The police then proceeded to the defendant's farm. At the scene, the police found the victim's body about 85 feet behind the trailer on the other side of a barbed wire fence. The water hose was still running and blood was observed on the spigot. The victim's .22 caliber rifle was
Page 438
leaning against a pole near the trailer. A cartridge was found jammed in the chamber, but no fingerprints were found on the .22 rifle. After daylight, investigators observed a distinct trail where the body had been dragged from an area near the trailer to the field. They also found a .300 magnum shell casing in the driveway about 70 feet from the trailer. The police also found two live .22 caliber shells on the ground but they found no .22 shell casings. When the police searched the defendant's Bronco they found a box of .300 magnum shells, a case of .22 shells, and what appeared to be a bullet hole, larger than a .22, about 3 inches from the bottom of the body of the Bronco on the driver's side. The defendant had a blood alcohol content of .12.1. The defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the state's evidence [252 Ga. 527] and at the conclusion of all the evidence. OCGA § 17-9-1(a) (Code Ann. § 27-1802). The defendant contends that the evidence is wholly circumstantial, that there was no evidence of malice or motive and that the evidence showed only self-defense. The evidence is not wholly circumstantial in that there was direct evidence that the defendant killed the victim.
The state on the other hand urges that the test for determining the sufficiency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, No. A94A0809
...582, 584, 436 S.E.2d 585. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 526(1), 527, 314 S.E.2d 2. In his seventh enumeration, defendant maintains the trial court erred in refusing to give his request to charge ......
-
Collins v. State, No. A97A0963
...a new trial will be granted. Failure to show one requirement is sufficient to deny a motion for new trial. [Cits.]" Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 528, 314 S.E.2d 436 Collins has failed to satisfy the first of these criteria. Approximately eight months before trial, medical records were se......
-
Oliver v. State, No. A98A0543.
...61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2. OCGA § 17-9-1(a). 3. Garrett v. State, 184 Ga.App. 715, 716(3), 362 S.E.2d 423 (1987) citing Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527(1), 314 S.E.2d 436 (1984). 4. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; Adams v. State, 255 Ga. 356, 357, 338 S.E.2d 860 (1986). 5. OCGA § 16-8-41. 6.......
-
Jefferson v. State, No. A92A1655
...to impeach the credibility of a witness. All six requirements must be satisfied before a new trial will be granted. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 528 (314 SE2d 436) (1984); Young v. State, 194 Ga.App. 335(1) (390 SE2d 305) (1990)." (Punctuation omitted.) Eliopulos v. State, 203 Ga.App. 26......
-
King v. State, No. A94A0809
...582, 584, 436 S.E.2d 585. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 526(1), 527, 314 S.E.2d 2. In his seventh enumeration, defendant maintains the trial court erred in refusing to give his request to charge ......
-
Collins v. State, No. A97A0963
...a new trial will be granted. Failure to show one requirement is sufficient to deny a motion for new trial. [Cits.]" Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 528, 314 S.E.2d 436 Collins has failed to satisfy the first of these criteria. Approximately eight months before trial, medical records were se......
-
Oliver v. State, No. A98A0543.
...61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2. OCGA § 17-9-1(a). 3. Garrett v. State, 184 Ga.App. 715, 716(3), 362 S.E.2d 423 (1987) citing Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527(1), 314 S.E.2d 436 (1984). 4. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; Adams v. State, 255 Ga. 356, 357, 338 S.E.2d 860 (1986). 5. OCGA § 16-8-41. 6.......
-
Jefferson v. State, No. A92A1655
...to impeach the credibility of a witness. All six requirements must be satisfied before a new trial will be granted. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 528 (314 SE2d 436) (1984); Young v. State, 194 Ga.App. 335(1) (390 SE2d 305) (1990)." (Punctuation omitted.) Eliopulos v. State, 203 Ga.App. 26......