Lindsey v. State, A90A0630

Decision Date08 June 1990
Docket NumberNo. A90A0630,A90A0630
Citation395 S.E.2d 328,196 Ga.App. 67
PartiesLINDSEY v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John E. Sawhill, III, Rome, for appellant.

Stephen F. Lanier, Dist. Atty. and Harold Chambers, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

CARLEY, Chief Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of two counts of voluntary manslaughter. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury's guilty verdicts.

1. The trial court's admission into evidence of an incriminating statement given by appellant to investigating officers is enumerated as error.

A Jackson-Denno hearing was held. The transcript of the hearing authorized the trial court to find that appellant waived his rights and freely and voluntarily gave the incriminating statement at a time when he showed no signs of intoxication. " '[F]actual and credibility determinations as to voluntariness of a confession are normally made at a suppression hearing and must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. (Cit.)' [Cits.]" Butler v. State, 194 Ga.App. 208(1), 390 S.E.2d 278 (1990). See also Henson v. State, 258 Ga. 600(1), 372 S.E.2d 806 (1988).

2. The trial court's giving of an instruction on flight is enumerated as error. Contrary to appellant's contentions, however, "[t]here was ample evidence to support the charge on flight. [Appellant] did not remain at the scene of the killing, and this is circumstantial evidence of [his] guilt. The charge given on flight was not error. [Cits.]" Wilson v. State, 257 Ga. 444, 447(4), 359 S.E.2d 891 (1987).

3. The trial court did not err in giving instructions on voluntary manslaughter. Although appellant relied on a theory of accidental discharge of his gun, he testified that the victims had struck and cut him. "We believe that at least 'slight evidence' existed as to provocation beyond words alone to authorize the jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the trial court did not err in giving the disputed instruction." Brooks v. State, 170 Ga.App. 171, 172, 316 S.E.2d 815 (1984). See also Paynter v. State, 164 Ga.App. 391, 297 S.E.2d 327 (1982).

4. The trial court's failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter is enumerated as error. However, the record shows that, "[f]ollowing the charge, the trial court asked if there were any exceptions. [Appellant] objected to the court's ... instruction on [volunta...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Metheny v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 4 Diciembre 1990
    ...not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300, 301, 381 S.E.2d 439 (1989); Lindsey v. State, 196 Ga.App. 67, 395 S.E.2d 328 (1990). We find no clear error in the trial court's (d) Lastly, we must determine whether it was harmless error to admit the st......
  • Connerly v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1993
    ...not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Kincey v. State, 191 Ga.App. 300, 301, 381 S.E.2d 439 (1989); Lindsey v. State, 196 Ga.App. 67, 395 S.E.2d 328 (1990); McDaniel v. State, 204 Ga.App. 753, 754, 420 S.E.2d 636 (1992); Hayes v. State, 203 Ga.App. 143, 145, 416 S.E.2d 347 (1......
  • Givens v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 3 Junio 1991
    ...did not err in charging the jury on the issue of flight. The evidence that appellant did not remain at the scene (Lindsey v. State, 196 Ga.App. 67(2), 395 S.E.2d 328), raised the issue whether in all the circumstances his act of leaving was due to consciousness of guilt or was attributable ......
  • Yearwood v. State, A90A1729
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 10 Enero 1991
    ...... must be accepted by appellate courts unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. (Cit.)' [Cits.]" Lindsey v. State, 196 Ga.App. 67(1), 395 S.E.2d 328 (1990). The uncontradicted evidence supports the finding of the trial court in the instant case. Accordingly, appellant's incrimina......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT