Moore v. State, A92A2214
| Citation | 207 Ga.App. 897,429 S.E.2d 340 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A2214,A92A2214 |
| Parties | MOORE v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Michael Mears, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Barbara B. Conroy, Jeffrey H. Brickman, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Willie Moore appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. The crime involved the slashing and beating assault of Moore's girl friend, after Moore had waited for her outside her apartment for about seven hours. Appellant and the victim had quarrelled over her intention to take her long-time friend, a male beautician, to a wedding. After returning from the wedding at about 4:00 a.m., the victim was severely slashed with a razor or a knife on her buttocks, ankle, back and breast. These cuts were up to 20 centimeters long and were deep. The victim managed to flee to a bathroom and wedged the door shut; appellant tried to come into the bathroom but was finally ejected from the apartment by the victim's friend. The victim did not know she was badly cut until she found herself sitting in a puddle of blood. On appeal, appellant enumerates three alleged errors. Held:
1. Appellant contends the trial court improperly admitted, as a similar transaction, evidence that appellant had murdered his wife or common-law wife in 1977 and was convicted of the crime. He contends the evidence had no similarities to this case because, e.g., the murder took place in another county and in another year, and upon his wife with whom he had children whereas this victim was only a casual lover; prior to killing his wife he had sat on a neighbor's porch most of the day with a shotgun and announced he was going to kill his wife whereas he made no such announcement in this case; he killed his wife in her yard whereas this victim was assaulted in her apartment; and he killed his wife at about 6:15 p.m. whereas this victim was assaulted at about 4:00 a.m.
Such superficial "dissimilarities" do not destroy the basis for admitting this evidence as a similar transaction. There was evidence that appellant told the victim's friend that she was his wife and appellant testified that he hoped to marry her. In each case, appellant stalked a woman with whom he was sexually and emotionally involved, obviously with the intent to do violent injury with a deadly weapon. That this victim was not murdered on account of her timely escape does not make this attack dissimilar. The length of time between the 1976 murder and this assault is not significant inasmuch as appellant was in prison for more than 13 years of the 14-year interim. Nor are the incidents dissimilar merely because the murder was committed with one type of deadly weapon while this assault was committed with another type of deadly weapon. The evidence of the murder of his wife was relevant as it tended to prove appellant's disposition and bent of mind toward resolving disputes or troubled emotions by stalking and doing violent injury to his female partner. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence under the standards for admitting evidence of similar transactions. See Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 409 S.E.2d 649; Cridiso v. State, 200 Ga.App. 342(2), 408 S.E.2d 153. Any issue as to whether the trial court made the proper findings of fact before admitting this evidence under Williams, supra (see Carter v. State, 205 Ga.App. 885, 886-887, 424 S.E.2d 81) has been waived by failure to raise such issue on appeal. Hansen v. State, 205 Ga.App. 604, 607(1), 423 S.E.2d 273. In any case, we will not reverse this verdict on such account because the evidence was properly admitted in fact.
2. Appellant claims he had ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Appellant complains that counsel improperly refused curative instructions as to the victim's statement that appellant wanted her to testify that someone else attacked her so he would not have to go "back to prison," which appellant contends placed his character in evidence. However, evidence of his having been to prison for the murder of his wife was properly admitted, so a reference to appellant's going "back to prison" is merely cumulative of evidence properly admitted, and harmless as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blige v. State
...of attempted rape and the instant matter involved a charge of rape does not alter our conclusion. See generally Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 897, 429 S.E.2d 340 (1993). Judgment POPE, C.J., and BIRDSONG, P.J., concur. 1 As explained in Caldwell, "[i]n 1908, Dr. Hardy and Dr. Weinberg formula......
-
Cole v. State
...Williams requirements is not appropriate on appeal." Wells, 208 Ga.App. at 300(2)(a), 430 S.E.2d 611. See also Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 897, 898-899(1), 429 S.E.2d 340 (1993) and Hansen v. State, 205 Ga.App. 604, 607(1), 423 S.E.2d 273 (1992). As an intermediate appellate court, we are a......
-
Ryles v. State
...in admitting this evidence under the standards for admitting evidence of similar transactions. [Cits.]" Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 897, 898(1), 429 S.E.2d 340 (1993). 2. Ryles also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to give a curative instruction to the jury following the admiss......
-
Howard v. State
...a sexual assault or kidnapping, do not destroy the basis for admitting this evidence of similar transactions. See Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 897, 898(1), 429 S.E.2d 340 (1993). The argument that the 1982 and 1991 transactions were too remote in time is similarly without merit. The 1991 ass......