Muckle v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GRICE; All the Justices concur, except HALL
• Citation: Muckle v. State, 233 Ga. 337, 211 S.E.2d 361 (Ga. 1974)
• Decision Date: 03 December 1974
• Docket Number: No. 29222,29222
• Parties: Jerry MUCKLE v. The STATE.

Page 361

211 S.E.2d 361

233 Ga. 337

Jerry MUCKLE v. The STATE.

No. 29222.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 3, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

It was error to admit evidence at the presentence hearing, in aggravation of punishment, concerning the psychological effect of the crime of rape on the victim in the period from the date of the crime until the trial.

Robert D. Peckham, Athens, for appellant.

Harry N. Gordon, Dist. Atty., Athens, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Lois F. Oakley, Atlanta, for appellee.

GRICE, Chief Justice.

Jerry Muckle was convicted in the Superior Court of Clarke County for rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal questions only the evidence allowed at the presentence hearing.

The state was permitted to introduce the evidence which follows, over the objections of the appellant that it was not legally admissible evidence, and that prior notice had not been given him that it would be submitted.

An Associate Professor of Vocational Counsel Training Program at the University of Georgia, a former instructor of the victim, testified that she had been a good student in his class prior to the commission of the crime, but that after the crime she was withdrawn in classes, and she later discontinued the course.

The husband of the victim testified that after the crime was committed, she changed from an outgoing, loving type of person to one who is withdrawn, scared, and more nervous; and that at times she breaks down and weeps for no known reason.

At the date of the conviction, May 20, 1974, the law in effect as to a presentence hearing was Code Ann. § 27-2534 (Ga.L.1970, pp. 949, 950; 1971, p. 902; 1973, pp. 159, 161). The pertinent language in this Section on the admissibility of evidence at such a hearing was as follows: 'In such hearing, subject to the laws of evidence, the jury or judge shall hear additional evidence in extenuation, mitigation, and aggravation of punishment, including the record of any prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty or pleas of nolo contendere of the defendant, or the absence of any such prior criminal convictions and pleas: Provided, however, that only such evidence in aggravation as the State has made known to the defendant prior to his trial shall be admissible.'

1. The only notice which the State gave the appellant in regard to the evidence to be submitted at the presentence hearing was the list of witnesses which was furnished to him prior to trial.

In Gates v. State, 229 Ga. 796(4), 194 S.E.2d 412, this court held, in part, as follows: 'The state contended that the appellant's attorney had 'been told' of prior convictions of the appellant prior to the trial but had not specifically informed appellant's counsel that this specific evidence of prior convictions would be relied on by the state and introduced in evidence at the sentencing phase of the trial. Appellant's counsel contended that the state had not put him on notice that the specific evidence offered would be used by the state during the sentencing phase of the trial. We believe that this statute means that...