Maxwell v. State
| Decision Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A1468,S91A1468 |
| Citation | 414 S.E.2d 470,262 Ga. 73 |
| Parties | MAXWELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Samuel F. Greneker, James G. Tunison, Jr., Blackburn, Bright, Edwards & Tunison, Valdosta, for Maxwell.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., Valdosta, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Peggy R. Katz, Staff Atty., Atlanta, for the State.
J. David Miller, Asst. Dist. Atty., Valdosta.
Sidney Dean Maxwell was convicted of murdering his wife, Gina Maxwell. He appeals and we reverse. 1
Appellant's wife spent the morning and early afternoon of August 11, 1990 working in the yard of her home with appellant, their three children, and appellant's mother and step-father. Appellant's wife left her home about 2:30 p.m. to go to the Moody Air Force Base where she worked in housekeeping. Appellant called his wife at the base about 9:30 p.m. and spoke with her briefly.
Appellant testified that when he awoke the next morning, he discovered that his wife had not come home from work the night before. Appellant called his parents and then the police with whom he placed a missing person's report. While appellant stayed at home with the baby, his parents drove to the base to see if they could find Gina Maxwell. Although they did not find her, they did find her car in the parking lot of a shopping center where a fast food restaurant and a bar were located. It was discovered that she had signed out at work the night before at 11 p.m. and, later in the day, her pocketbook and wallet were found in a dumpster located in the parking lot where her car had been found.
On August 17, 1990, Gina Maxwell's fully clothed body was found in a wooded area to the east of the shopping center where her car and pocketbook had been found. An autopsy was performed, however, the body and skeletal system showed no sign of fractures or trauma. While an analysis of body tissue and fluid revealed the presence of .06 grams of ethyl alcohol, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Gina Maxwell was not able to determine when, where, or how the death occurred.
1. Considering all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, even that evidence which was erroneously admitted, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Maxwell guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988).
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by permitting the state to introduce evidence concerning three prior incidents involving appellant and his wife: one in 1987, one in 1988, and a third in 1990. We agree.
a. Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.1 requires the state to provide defendant with notice of its intent to present evidence of similar transactions or occurrences, including evidence of prior difficulties between defendant and the victim, at least ten days before trial, unless the trial court lengthens or shortens the notice time. Loggins v. State, 260 Ga. 1, 2, 388 S.E.2d 675 (1990). Here, no such notice was provided and its absence was error.
The state contends that the appellant had actual notice of its intent to present such evidence because appellant had been in possession of the state's file, all 780 pages of it, since January of 1990 and the statement of the witness that testified as to the 1987 and 1988 incidents was a part of that file as was the statement of the witness that testified as to the 1990 incident. A copy of the state's entire file was given to appellant in response to the trial court's order to turn over "everything that [the state] had in its file concerning evidence which might be relevant or even irrelevant, exculpatory and inculpatory in connection with this investigation and the case."
As we recognized in Loggins, supra, Superior Court Rule 31 recognizes the difficulty of rebutting evidence of specific acts unless timely notice of the state's intention to offer evidence of those acts is given. Subdivision (B) of Rule 31.3 requires that the notice be in a specific form to ensure that the state actually notifies the defendant of its intent to use certain evidence so that the defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to rebut that evidence. Burying the defendant with paper by providing him with a copy of its entire case file does not accomplish the state's duty of notifying the defendant of the specific acts it intends to present evidence of to the jury.
b. As we once again acknowledged in Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 409 S.E.2d 649 (1991), because the general character of an accused is inadmissible unless the accused chooses to put his character in issue, we prohibit the admission of evidence of distinct, independent, and separate offenses or acts where there is no logical connection between the crime charged and those independent offenses or acts. Prohibition of such evidence helps to ensure that an accused is tried for the offense for which he was indicted rather than for other acts which may have occurred in the past.
Evidence of prior difficulties between an accused and a victim is a type of character evidence which "should be received with care and should not be admitted at all if there is no probative connection with the present case...." Cooper v. State, 256 Ga. 234, 235, 347 S.E.2d 553 (1986). For there to be a probative connection between the prior difficulties and the present case, there must be:
some link of association, something which draws together the preceding and subsequent acts, something which gives color of cause and effect to the transaction and sheds light upon the motive of the parties....
Pound v. State, 43 Ga. 88, 89, 132-133 (1871). See also Horton v. State, 110 Ga. 739, 740-741, 35 S.E. 659 (1900). Where there are recent quarrels or difficulties between the accused and the victim which continue up until the time of the victim's death, those prior quarrels or difficulties may shed some light upon the motive for the homicide and may, therefore, be admissible. Gunter v. State, 243 Ga. 651, 656, 256 S.E.2d 341 (1979).
Before evidence of prior difficulties or quarrels can be presented to a jury, the trial court must conduct a hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3(B) just as it must do with respect to independent offenses or acts. Accord Williams v. State, supra. At that hearing, for each prior difficulty or quarrel the state seeks to introduce, the state must make the three affirmative showings we outlined in Williams, 261 Ga. at 641-643, and the trial court must then make a determination, as to each prior difficulty or quarrel, that these three showings have been satisfactorily made before the state may present any evidence of that difficulty or quarrel to the jury. 2
3. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce evidence of two conversations appellant purportedly had with third parties prior to the death of his wife. One conversation about which appellant complains occurred over a year before his wife's death. A witness was allowed to testify, over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prater v. State
...admitted evidence is considered. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 74(1), 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992), overruled on other grounds, Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506, 509(2), 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998); State v. Malufau, supra at 622(I). The ......
-
Green v. State
...was erroneously admitted, and disregard any additional evidence which a competent attorney might have obtained. See Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 74(1), 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992),overruled on other grounds, Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506, 509(2), 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998). Compare Livingston v. State, ......
-
McTaggart v. State
...of this case require that an analysis be made, not under Williams as a prior similar transaction, but under Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 74-75(2), 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992), as prior difficulties between the parties where the issue is not similarity with an independent crime, but the existence......
-
State v. Tyler
...examiner “based his conclusion that the death was a homicide on the circumstances reported to him by the police”); Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 414 S.E.2d 470, 473–74 (1992) (holding “[t]he medical examiner should not have been permitted to testify as to his conclusion or opinion of the ma......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...42. Id. at 302, 496 S.E.2d at 313. 43. Id. 44. Id. at 303, 496 S.E.2d at 314. 45. Id. 46. Id. 47. Id. at 304, 496 S.E.2d at 314-15. 48. 262 Ga. 73, 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992). 49. Id. at 75, 414 S.E.2d at 473. 50. 269 Ga. 506, 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998). 51. Id. at 507, 500 S.E.2d at 906. 52. Id. at ......
-
Evidence - Mark T. Treadwell
...by court) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17. Id. at 307, 504 S.E.2d at 13 (Andrews, C.J., dissenting). 18. Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 31.3. 19. 262 Ga. 73, 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992). 20. Id. at 74-75, 414 S.E.2d at 472-73. 21. Marc T. Treadwell, Evidence, 50 mercer L. Rev. 229, 234 (1998). 22. 269 ......