McEachin v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 35985,35985 |
| Citation | 245 Ga. 606,266 S.E.2d 210 |
| Parties | McEACHIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Laddie Boatright, Hazlehurst, for appellant.
Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., John B. Johnson, III, Asst. Dist. Atty.,Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the shotgun murder of John Joyce during the robbery of the Rusty Nail, a wine and beer store in Hazlehurst. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals, enumerating seven errors. We affirm.
1. A review of the record in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution shows a rational finder of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The state's evidence, including testimony of an oral confession, showed appellant and his 16-year-old brother loaded a Volkswagen van with appellant's trail bike and went to a spot about 100 yards north of the Rusty Nail. They planned to rob it. The younger brother rode the bike to the store's drive-in window and ordered beer. To get it, the victim went to the rear of the store. Appellant went in the front door holding a Remington 16-gauge shotgun. The victim had been counting the day's receipts. He was holding a .22 Magnum pistol in his hand when he turned toward appellant, who shot Joyce in the head, killing him instantly. Appellant then walked behind the counter, picked up the store receipts and the .22 Magnum pistol and left the store. The younger brother rode appellant to the van, then followed him as he drove down several dirt roads to Hinson's Landing. There, the two burned all checks and buried the guns. Later, appellant hid the cash stolen in a jar under his girl friend's house. He then drove the van to Lumber City.
Investigation produced witnesses who testified a van followed by a motor bike had passed their properties around midnight of the day of the killing heading for Hinson's Landing and had returned early the next morning. Tire tracks at Hinson's Landing showed one of the vehicles had a rear tire worn thin and slick. Another witness told of seeing a van followed by a bike on the road to Lumber City.
GBI Agent Abernathy observed a van fitting the description given by this witness sitting at Cook & Company in Lumber City. Its left rear tire was worn thin and slick. Abernathy knew appellant and subsequently interviewed him twice after stating appropriate Miranda warnings. Appellant subsequently confessed and led officers to the cash, guns, and to the site where the checks were burned. Other testimony corroborated details given in the confession. Following a Jackson-Denno hearing, a jury made an independent determination that the confession was voluntary.
2. Appellant's demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. Appellant was charged on two counts with malice murder and armed robbery. The state's evidence proved appellant killed Joyce, then robbed the store. The court charged only on malice murder and the jury returned a verdict as to that charge only.
The indictment was also not affected by the notice of aggravating circumstance given to appellant. It showed the state would seek the death penalty and would rely upon the armed robbery occurring coincident with the murder as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant contends the notice of aggravating circumstance made it appear that the state would proceed upon felony murder and armed robbery counts, the latter a lesser included offense of felony murder. This confused the indictment, made it duplicitous and misleading as to what charges appellant must defend against.
Nothing in the notice of aggravating circumstance warrants a belief that the state would not proceed on a malice murder count. Appellant was fully apprised that he would have to defend against the armed robbery evidence presented during the trial-in-chief. Neither the state nor the appellant offered any evidence in aggravation or mitigation beyond those facts and circumstances already in the record. The court charged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 39526
...to refresh his memory and which was not in evidence. Reece v. State, 160 Ga.App. 59(1), 286 S.E.2d 41 (1981), citing McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606(5), 266 S.E.2d 210 (1980); Smith v. Smith, 222 Ga. 313, 315, 149 S.E.2d 683 (1966); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718, 203 S.E.2d 537 (1974); J......
-
Jackson v. State, 61904
...has no right to examine for this purpose private notes used by a witness to refresh his recollection. See, e. g., McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606(5), 266 S.E.2d 210 (1980), and cases cited therein. Although the defendant urges this court to overrule this line of cases, we are without authori......
-
Mason v. State, 62519
...which a prosecution witness refreshed his recollection at trial. Defendant had no right to examine such statements. McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606(5), 266 S.E.2d 210, and cases there Judgment affirmed. McMURRAY, P. J., and POPE, J., concur. ...
-
Reece v. State
...for the defendants was not entitled to examine the document utilized by the state's witness to refresh his memory. McEachin v. State, 245 Ga. 606(5), 266 S.E.2d 210. Accord, Smith v. Smith, 222 Ga. 313, 315, 149 S.E.2d 683; Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718, 203 S.E.2d 537; Jackson v. State......