Lay v. State, 33806
| Decision Date | 26 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 33806,33806 |
| Citation | 248 S.E.2d 611,242 Ga. 225 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | LAY v. The STATE. |
James C. Bonner, Jr., Robert C. Kates, Athens, for appellant.
William F. Lee, Jr., Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Frances Lay was indicted together with her son (Undell Lay) and James Moten for the murder of her teenage granddaughter. The son pled guilty to the murder and testified for the defense at the trial, which resulted in the convictions of Frances Lay and James Moten.
James Moten's conviction was timely appealed and affirmed. Moten v. State, 231 Ga. 642, 203 S.E.2d 527 (1974). Frances Lay's attorney failed to timely file her appeal. She subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus, which was granted, resulting in this "out of time appeal." 1
1. Frances Lay contends that the evidence against her was wholly insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
The state presented evidence on the theory that the victim was killed for the proceeds of four life insurance policies payable to Frances Lay as beneficiary, that the actual murder was committed by Undell Lay and James Moten and that when the victim's body was not discovered the three participants planned that Frances Lay would tell the sheriff of a telephone call from an unidentified man telling her that he had killed the girl and giving the location of the body. When the sheriff was unable to locate the body based on this information, Frances Lay located it for the authorities.
There is no dispute that Undell Lay and James Moten killed the girl and disposed of her body. Undell Lay freely admitted he committed the murder but testified that he killed the victim for personal reasons and that his mother had no part in the crime. James Moten testified that his participation was a result of threats made by Undell Lay and that Undell Lay's mother was not involved.
There was evidence that Frances Lay lied to police about the existence of three of the four insurance policies she had recently sought and obtained on the victim's life and had hidden in her home. There was also evidence admissible against James Moten from which the jury would have been authorized to find that she was present when Undell Lay and James Moten planned how Moten would call Frances Lay at a neighbor's house and tell her where the body could be found. There was direct as well as circumstantial evidence of Frances Lay's participation in the criminal activity. Her participation was shown and corroborated by her reports to the sheriff as well as her locating the body. Accepting that Undell Lay and Moten disposed of the victim's body, the jury would have been authorized to find that one of them told Frances Lay, either in person or by phone, where it was so that she could discover it. The discovery of the body was unnecessary (as well as undesirable) to Undell Lay's avowed personal motive for the murder but was necessary to collect the insurance. After hearing the witnesses and having observed them testify, the jury found Frances Lay guilty. We find the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. Ridley v. State, 236 Ga. 147(1), 223 S.E.2d 131 (1976); Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242(1), 223 S.E.2d 643 (1976); Banks v. State, 237 Ga. 325(1), 227 S.E.2d 380 (1976); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
..."has no codical basis" but "appears to have had its genesis in Byrd v. Smith , 407 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1969)." Lay v. State , 242 Ga. 225, 225 n.1, 248 S.E.2d 611 (1978). See also Collier , 307 Ga. at 371 n.9, 834 S.E.2d 769 (quoting Lay ). But Byrd was a federal habeas decision requiring th......
-
Rowland v. State
...appeal" "is granted where the deficiency involves not the trial but the denial of the right of appeal. [Cits.]" Lay v. State, 242 Ga. 225, n. 1, 248 S.E.2d 611 (1978). It serves as a remedy for a habeas corpus petitioner who suffered a constitutional deprivation as well as the criminal defe......
-
Cook v. State
...407 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1969)." Lay v. State, 242 Ga. 225, 225 n.1 (248 S.E.2d 611) (1978). See also Collier, 307 Ga. at 371 n.9 (quoting Lay). But Byrd was a habeas decision requiring that Georgia "either allow an appeal at this time or permit an out-of-time appeal by whatever procedure is ......
-
Collier v. State
...of the motion.See also OCGA § 5-6-39 (providing for limited extensions of time to file a notice of appeal).9 In Lay v. State , 242 Ga. 225 n.1, 248 S.E.2d 611 (1978), this Court noted that the " ‘[o]ut of time appeal’ in Georgia appears to have had its genesis in Byrd v. Smith , 407 F.2d 36......