Moon v. State, 40956
| Decision Date | 12 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 40956,40956 |
| Citation | 253 Ga. 74,316 S.E.2d 464 |
| Parties | MOON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Thomas Jarrard, Deal & Jarrard, Gainesville, for David Richard moon.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Bruce L. Udolf,Asst. Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Donald T. Hunt, Asst. Dist. Atty, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Dunn, Atlanta, for the State.
David Richard Moon shot and killed Robert C. Busby, from ambush, with a shotgun. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 1
The custody of Moon's three sons and a foster child had been awarded to his former wife during divorce proceedings. Moon thereafter sought, unsuccessfully, to obtain custody. Moon said he believed that his former wife provided an unfit and improper environment for the raising of his children, and that her present husband, the victim, was cruel toward them. He once threatened the victim during an exchange of physical custody of the children.
Several days before the homicide, Moon purchased a box of shotgun shells, and stole a camouflaged canoe. On the night before the ambush, he dressed himself in dark clothing and a ski mask, and used the canoe to travel from a secluded spot to a boat ramp near the victim's home. Knowing the time of morning at which the victim could be expected to leave for work, he lay in ambush outside the victim's home, then shot the victim at a distance of five feet, as he walked toward his vehicle in the dim morning light.
Moon then returned by canoe to his vehicle and left the county, attempting to escape to the North Georgia mountains.
After his arrest, Moon admitted shooting Busby. He testified during trial in accordance with his pre-trial statements. His defense was that the homicide was justified by the necessity to protect his children from physical and mental abuse on the part of Busby. The evidence established that the victim had used nothing beyond reasonable disciplinary measures regarding the children.
1. The general grounds are without merit, as the evidence supports the verdict under the criteria of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Moon contends that his written statements should have been excluded from the jury's consideration. The court conducted a Jackson-Denno hearing out of the presence of the jury, after which it expressly found that Moon had waived his Miranda rights, had not requested counsel, and that the statements were given voluntarily. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Cox v. State, 248 Ga. 713(1), 285 S.E.2d 687 (1982). Moreover, Moon testified to the substance of his statements during trial, admitted in open court that he would have given the statements regardless of any suggestion by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. the State.
...involving pre-July 2007 trials simply apply waiver to jury charge issues not properly objected to at trial. See, e.g., Moon v. State, 253 Ga. 74, 74, 316 S.E.2d 464 (1984) (“Moon's remaining enumerations, relating to the court's initial instructions, the additional instructions given at the......
-
Butler v. State, 41735
...ruling here that the appellant's statement to police was freely and voluntarily given was not clearly erroneous. Moon v. State, 253 Ga. 74(2), 316 S.E.2d 464 (1984) and cit. (3) It cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motions for funds to hire an ......
-
Crawford v. the State.
...the defense of accident are waived for lack of a timely request or proper objection and there is no plain error. See Moon v. State, 253 Ga. 74(3), 316 S.E.2d 464 (1984); OCGA § 17–8–58(a). (b) Appellant requested a charge on voluntary manslaughter and properly objected to the trial court's ......
-
Fordham v. State
...court determined that the statements were freely and voluntarily given. This determination was not clearly erroneous. Moon v. State, 253 Ga. 74, 316 S.E.2d 464 (1984). 4. Fordham contends that the trial court improperly permitted the investigating officer to state his opinion on an importan......