Mattox v. State, 75320
Decision Date | 26 January 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75320,75320 |
Citation | 366 S.E.2d 158,185 Ga.App. 787 |
Parties | MATTOX v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John R. Calhoun, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. Clayton Culp, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
James A. Mattox was indicted for murder but convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of his wife. Defendant enumerates fourteen errors, none of which have merit.
1. Construed most strongly in favor of the verdict, the evidence of record is such that any rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. See Thomas v. State, 141 Ga.App. 192, 233 S.E.2d 41 (1977); Nolen v. State, 124 Ga.App. 593, 184 S.E.2d 674 (1971); see also May v. State, 146 Ga.App. 416(3), 246 S.E.2d 432 (1978). The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict. Holt v. State, 157 Ga.App. 405(1) 278 S.E.2d 59 (1981).
2. The trial court gave the following charge on the law relating to incriminatory statements: Defendant contends that the last sentence of the foregoing charge is unconstitutionally burden-shifting. That is, although this charge is termed in the negative, a reasonable juror could infer that the reverse of the charge is true, viz., that in the absence of an explanation by defendant showing excuse, justification or mitigation, a presumption of guilt would arise.
We find the language complained of, when considered in isolation, could potentially be construed as burden-shifting and, thus, disapprove its use. 1 See, e.g., Noggle v. State, 256 Ga.App. 383(4), 349 S.E.2d 175 (1986). " " Melton v. State, 175 Ga.App. 472, 474, 333 S.E.2d 682 (1985), quoting Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 315, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971-72, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); see also Flannigan v. State, 139 Ga.App. 590(1), 229 S.E.2d 98 (1976).
Assuming arguendo that a reasonable juror could potentially have interpreted the subject language as creating an unconstitutional presumption, we find no prejudice to defendant's substantial rights under the circumstances in this case. The trial court thoroughly and correctly charged the jury as to the burden of proof in a criminal case. More importantly, however, the record evidence shows without dispute that defendant's incriminatory statement was accompanied by an explanation excusing culpability, viz, that the shooting was accidental. Therefore, we find no basis for a reasonable juror in this case to have interpreted the questioned charge as creating an unconstitutional presumption. It is clear to us beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in this regard did not contribute to the verdict of guilty and thus was harmless. See Lewis v. State, 180 Ga.App. 890(2), 351 S.E.2d 100 (1986); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); see also Williams v. Kemp, 255 Ga. 380, 338 S.E.2d 669, cert. den., 478 U.S. 1022, 106...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bartlett v. State, A90A0527
...doubt that any error in [the charge] did not contribute to the verdict of guilty and thus was harmless. [Cits.]" Mattox v. State, 185 Ga.App. 787, 789(2), 366 S.E.2d 158 (1988). Judgment DEEN, P.J., and BEASLEY, J., concur. ...
-
PDA, Inc. v. Haas Corp.
... ... See, e.g., North Fulton, etc., Hosp. v. State Health, etc., 168 Ga.App. 801, 810(3), 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983); Pruitt v. First Nat. Bank of ... ...
-
McWhorter v. State
...case. The trial court thoroughly and correctly charged the jury as to the burden of proof in a criminal case." Mattox v. State, 185 Ga.App. 787, 789(2), 366 S.E.2d 158 (1988). 4. Appellants enumerate as error the trial court's failure to instruct on simple Even assuming that such an instruc......