McDuffie v. State, A93A1080
Decision Date | 06 August 1993 |
Docket Number | No. A93A1080,A93A1080 |
Citation | 210 Ga.App. 112,435 S.E.2d 452 |
Parties | McDUFFIE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jackson & Schiavone, Michael G. Schiavone, Steven L. Sparger, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Kimberly Rowden, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was charged with the offenses of kidnapping, theft by taking and escape. Defendant gave notice of his intention to interpose the defenses of not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill and guilty but mentally retarded. The jury found defendant guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crimes. Defendant appeals.
1. Four of defendant's enumerations of error concern the trial court's charge to the jury concerning the alternative verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill and guilty but mentally retarded. Essentially, the trial court instructed the jury that they could consider any of these verdicts as an alternative to guilty or not guilty. As required by OCGA § 17-7-131(b)(3), the judge also instructed the jury as to the disposition of the defendant in the event any of those alternative verdicts were returned. Defendant argues the charge was inadequate because the trial judge merely informed the jury that the alternative verdicts could be considered by them but failed to instruct the jury concerning the definition of or criteria for returning any of these alternative verdicts. Defendant also argues the instruction was improper because it failed to inform the jury that they must first determine whether defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity before they could consider the alternative verdict of guilty but mentally ill.
We agree that the charge as given was inadequate. Price v. State, 179 Ga.App. 598, 601-602, 347 S.E.2d 608 (1986).
In Price, because there was evidence from which a jury could find defendant did not have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, the charge which did not comply with Keener was improper and, even though defendant did not raise the issue at trial or on appeal, this court concluded pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-24(c) that the charge was harmful as a matter of law. By contrast, in this case no evidence was presented that defendant lacked the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. In fact, both defendant and defendant's expert witness, a psychologist, testified that defendant did recognize right from wrong but was nevertheless compelled by his history of depression to commit the acts of which he was charged. Thus, even though the charge did not adequately instruct the jury concerning the alternative verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the error was harmless because no evidence was presented to support such a verdict. Neither was evidence presented to support a verdict of guilty but mentally retarded.
As to defendant's argument that the charge concerning the alternative verdict of guilty but mentally ill was inadequate and confusing, defendant has shown no harm. The jury did not return a simple guilty verdict but found defendant guilty but mentally ill so that defendant is entitled to be sentenced accordingly.
2. In the course of defining the evidentiary standard of reasonable doubt to the jury, the trial court stated: The court went on to define reasonable doubt as Defendant argues that the reference to "moral certainty" is improper and violates the holding of Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990). We disagree.
In Cage, in addition to stating that guilt must be found to a moral certainty, the trial court defined reasonable doubt as consisting of " ... Id. at 40, 111 S.Ct. at 39. The United States Supreme Court found the charge improper not because of the use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. State, A02A0924.
...S.E.2d 708 (1995) (guilty but mentally ill). 16. Heidler v. State, 273 Ga. 54, 63(14), 537 S.E.2d 44 (2000); McDuffie v. State, 210 Ga.App. 112, 113-114(1), 435 S.E.2d 452 (1993). 17. Heidler, supra; McDuffie, supra; cf. Mack, supra (reversal required where evidence of mental retardation pr......
-
Toney v. State, A94A2147
...and therefore did not violate the Due Process Clause. Bradford v. State, 261 Ga. 833(2) (412 SE2d 534) (1992); McDuffie v. State, 210 Ga.App. 112(2) (435 SE2d 452) (1993); Starr v. State, 201 Ga.App. 73, 74 (410 SE2d 180) (1991). Cf. Vance v. State, 262 Ga. 236(2) (416 SE2d 516) (1992)." (F......
-
Shelley v. State
...S.E.2d 406. 5. Defendants' complaint as to the trial court's charge on reasonable doubt was similarly rejected in McDuffie v. State, 210 Ga. App. 112, 114(2), 435 S.E.2d 452. Other challenges to the trial court's jury instructions are unauthorized expansions of each defendant's final enumer......
- Prince v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., COCA-COLA