Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64505,64505 |
| Citation | 297 S.E.2d 112,164 Ga.App. 500 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles A. Mullinax, Stone Mountain, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Harvey W. Moskowitz, Joseph J. Drolet, Benjamin H. Oehlert, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was charged with the murder of Horace Carmichael and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. He now appeals from the judgment entered on that jury verdict.
1. From the evidence adduced at trial, the jury was authorized to conclude that appellant argued with Carmichael in a neighborhood lounge and followed him into the street when he left the night spot. After the victim fired a gun at appellant and fled, appellant fired two shots, one of which entered the upper left portion of the victim's back and exited from his right chest, killing him. We hold that the above-summarized evidence authorized a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter and that the same evidence authorized a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560). Guest v. State, 155 Ga.App. 374(2), 270 S.E.2d 904.
2. Appellant maintains that reversible error was committed when the trial court failed to give the jury two defense-requested instructions concerning justifiable homicide and the state's burden of proof once a defendant presents evidence that he acted in self-defense. Inasmuch as the charge as given correctly covered the requested principles of law, there was no error in refusing to give appellant's requested charges. McCane v. State, 147 Ga.App. 730(2), 250 S.E.2d 181.
3. The trial court's jury instructions on circumstantial evidence and Code Ann. § 26-902(b) (O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21(b)) are alleged by appellant to have been unnecessary and therefore erroneous. Even if we assume that the questioned instructions were inapplicable, affirmance of appellant's conviction is in order since "[i]t is never error to give an inapplicable instruction if the court gave the correct rule of law and the irrelevant charge could not reasonably be calculated to prejudice the complaining party or mislead the jury." Sherrod v. State, 157 Ga.App. 351(3), 277 S.E.2d 335.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State, S11A1663.
...Taking the charge as a whole we find no reversible error.Hill v. State, supra. See also Lowe v. State, supra; Martin v. State, 164 Ga.App. 500(3), 297 S.E.2d 112 (1982). 4. Neal further contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present readily available t......
-
Neal v. State
...Taking the charge as a whole we find no reversible error.Hill v. State, supra. See also Lowe v. State, supra; Martin v. State, 164 Ga. App. 500 (3) (297 SE2d 112) (1982). 4. Neal further contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present readily available ......
-
Glass v. State, 66220
...guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cit.]." Mosley v. State, 157 Ga.App. 578(1), 278 S.E.2d 154 (1981). See also Martin v. State, 164 Ga.App. 500, 297 S.E.2d 112 (1982); Malone v. State, 160 Ga.App. 883(1), 288 S.E.2d 595 2. Two enumerations of error relate to the manner in which the cross-ex......