Mason v. Balkcom
Decision Date | 07 April 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-127-MAC. |
Citation | 487 F. Supp. 554 |
Parties | Guy MASON, Petitioner, v. Charles R. BALKCOM, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
James C. Bonner, Jr., University of Georgia School of Law, Legal Aid and Defender Soc., Prisoner Legal Counseling Project, Athens, Ga., for petitioner.
William B. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Ga., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
RULING ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner Guy Mason was convicted of murder and sentenced to death following a jury trial in the Superior Court for Baldwin County; on appeal his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Mason v. State, 236 Ga. 46, 222 S.E.2d 339 (1976). Petitioner next filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court for Tattnall County. That habeas action was stayed while the petitioner pursued an extraordinary motion for a new trial in the Baldwin Superior Court; after an evidentiary hearing the extraordinary motion was denied by the trial judge. That decision was affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Supreme Court. Mason v. State, 239 Ga. 538, 238 S.E.2d 79 (1977). Subsequently, the Tattnall Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing on the habeas petition and denied that petition in a written opinion entered July 13, 1978. Mason v. Hopper, No. 76-218 (Sup.Ct. of Tattnall County, July 13, 1978). The Georgia Supreme Court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal on October 3, 1978. Following the extensive state litigation described above, the petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The petitioner has raised essentially six arguments of constitutional error, each of which has been presented to, considered and rejected by the state courts.
The facts surrounding the killing which gave rise to this case are adequately summarized in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court entered upon the petitioner's initial appeal.
The facts concerning events at the petitioner's trial which gave rise to his complaints of constitutional error will be set out below in connection and as relevant to the discussion of each of the petitioner's arguments.
The petitioner complains that certain portions of the trial judge's charge either impermissibly relieved the prosecution of its full burden of proof on an essential element of the crime of murder, namely intent, or impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on that element from the prosecution to the petitioner. Relevant portions of the charge are set out below:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holloway v. McElroy
...F.2d 1055, 1063-74 (4th Cir. 1980) (Murnaghan, J., dissenting).24 See parts II-B & II-C of this opinion, infra.25 Compare Mason v. Balkcom, 487 F.Supp. 554 (M.D.Ga.), appeal docketed, No. 80-7344 (5th Cir. 1980).26 By "general intent" we mean intent in the sense that a person intends the co......
-
O'Bryan v. Estelle
...is appropriate. McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 705 F.2d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.1983) (Kravitch, J., dissenting); see also Mason v. Balkcom, 487 F.Supp. 554, 560 (M.D.Ga.1980) (noting trial judge's opportunity to observe As discussed above, however, our review of the case law reveals that the courts......
-
Barfield v. Harris
...their reconsidered positions were that they could not impose the death penalty under any circumstances." Id. See also Mason v. Balkcom, 487 F.Supp. 554, 560 (M.D.Ga.1980), reversed on other grounds, 669 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1982); Douglas v. Wainwright, 521 F.Supp. 790, 796-800 The court view......
-
Gaddy v. Linahan, 83-8660
...Thus, "intent to kill" is an integral part of an essential element of the crime of murder, namely malice aforethought.Mason v. Balkcom, 487 F.Supp. 554, 558 (M.D.Ga.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 669 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1016, 103 S.Ct. 1260, 75 L.Ed.2d 48......