Humphrey v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 40629,40629 |
| Citation | 252 Ga. 525,314 S.E.2d 436 |
| Parties | HUMPHREY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
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.
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 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 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 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 the evidence in response to a motion for directed verdict is the "any evidence" test, citing Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 376, 219 S.E.2d 743 (1975). Bethay was decided prior to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). In light of Jackson v. Virginia, we find that the test established there is the proper test for us to use when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, whether the challenge arises from the overruling of a motion for directed verdict or the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
The state's evidence showed that the victim's body was moved from the vicinity of the trailer and that an effort had been made to wash away the victim's blood. Such evidence authorized the jury to find that the defendant at first sought to conceal the victim's death, that the defendant's initial reaction to the killing demonstrated guilt, that the defendant's explanation as to why he moved the body was unsatisfactory, 2 and that the defendant's claim of self-defense was concocted. The state is required to prove malice, not motive. Phillips v. State, 207 Ga. 336, 61 S.E.2d 473 (1950).
The jury was authorized to refuse to accept the defendant's claim of self-defense, and reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution we find that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, supra.
2. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested charges on reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence, justification and burden of proof. He also contends that the court erred in failing to give, without request, a charge on misfortune and accident. We find no error. The jury was properly instructed as to reasonable doubt, etc., and there was no evidence to require a charge on misfortune and accident. Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288(7), 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982); Boling v. State, 244 Ga. 825(9), 262 S.E.2d 123 (1979).
3. The defendant contends ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. State
...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. Hicks v. S......
-
Collins v. State
...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 (1984). Collins has failed to satisfy the first of these criteria. Approximately eight months before trial, medical records......
-
Jefferson v. State
...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......
-
Hammond v. The State, A09A1701.
...of a directed verdict or the denial of a motion for new trial based upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 527(1), 314 S.E.2d 436 (1984). The thrust of Hammond's argument is that the evidence presented at his trial does not satisfy the test adopted in Ga......