McKenzie v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38717,38717 |
| Citation | 292 S.E.2d 692,249 Ga. 582 |
| Parties | McKENZIE v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
W. Dennis Mullis, Cochran, for Jimmy McKenzie.
James L. Wiggins, Dist. Atty., James E. Turk, Asst. Dist. Atty., Eastman, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
Jimmy McKenzie was convicted for the murder of Mary Lou Standquist Schwab and sentenced to life imprisonment. His motion for a new trial was denied, and he appeals.
On the night of June 6, 1981, McKenzie met the victim at a nightclub in Cochran, Georgia. At about 11:30 P.M. McKenzie and the victim left the nightclub and went to a beer store, where McKenzie purchased an eight-pack of beer. McKenzie was on foot and the victim was on a bicycle. The pair then proceeded to a spot near the railroad tracks, where McKenzie asked the victim if she would have sex with him. Rebuffed, McKenzie became angry and pushed the victim off of the bicycle, knocking her unconscious. McKenzie later told investigating officers that he thought the victim was dead, although he admitted that he detected a slight pulse at the time. In an attempt to feign an accident, McKenzie placed the victim's body on the railroad tracks, knowing that a train would pass by that night. The victim was crushed by a train at about 2:15 A.M. on June 7. An expert testified at trial that, in his opinion, the victim was alive at the time that the train passed over her.
1. McKenzie contends that the trial court erred in allowing a witness for the State, G.B.I. agent Charles Dudley, to remain in the courtroom after the rule of sequestration had been invoked, and in allowing him to testify after other prosecution witnesses. The Assistant District Attorney informed the trial court, out of the presence of the jury, that Mr. Dudley was in effect the chief investigating officer in the case and that his assistance was necessary to an orderly presentation of the State's case. He also stated that to require Mr. Dudley to testify first would hinder the orderly presentation of the State's evidence. Based on these statements, the trial court did not require Mr. Dudley's sequestration. We find no abuse of discretion. Hardy v. State, 245 Ga. 272(1), 264 S.E.2d 209 (1980).
2. McKenzie contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the issue of voluntary intoxication, alleging that at no point did he make an issue of his intoxication or suggest intoxication as a defense. In his statements to police officers, admitted at trial, McKenzie acknowledged that he had been drinking heavily on the night in question. There was evidence that he had been drinking beer at the nightclub and that he purchased more beer at a beer store prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...State, 265 Ga. 243, 246(3)(d), 454 S.E.2d 492 (1995); Robinson v. State, 258 Ga. 279, 281(4), 368 S.E.2d 513 (1988); McKenzie v. State, 249 Ga. 582(2), 292 S.E.2d 692 (1982); Taylor v. State, 229 Ga. 536, 540(3), 192 S.E.2d 249 11. Jackson also urges that, by charging on "accident" only onc......
-
Gluth Bros. Const., Inc. v. Union Nat. Bank
... ... disclosure laws by filing a copy of his political committee's statement of organization, along with financial disclosure reports, with the State Board of Elections in Springfield. These documents were public knowledge and apparently were the method by which defendant initially became aware of ... ...
-
Thomas v. State
...A charge on the subject was proper regardless of whether his intoxication was raised as an issue or defense. McKenzie v. State, 249 Ga. 582(2), 292 S.E.2d 692 (1982). 13. In his thirteenth enumeration of error, appellant argues that the charges on voluntary manslaughter and the alternative ......
-
Bolick v. State, A00A1532.
...and further stated in its order that it would have utilized its discretion to overrule such objections. See McKenzie v. State, 249 Ga. 582(1), 292 S.E.2d 692 (1982). This Court finds that (i) the trial court's finding was not clearly erroneous, and (ii) Bolick has failed to demonstrate that......