Mulkey v. State, 59819

Decision Date02 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 59819,59819
Citation155 Ga.App. 304,270 S.E.2d 816
PartiesMULKEY v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Carol W. Hunstein, Atlanta, for appellant.

Frank C. Mills, III, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

Arson. Edgar Mulkey was convicted of arson in the first degree, and appeals, enumerating three errors.

The burned store building housed a men's retail clothing business owned and operated by Mulkey. Chief witness against Mulkey was Disharoon, who plead guilty to the same offense, and whose testimony that Mulkey hired him to commit the crime is the only direct evidence that the appellant was a principal in the commission of the crime.

The evidence disclosed that Mulkey had approximately $60,000 in inventory in the store including a recent shipment of men's shirts. He had recently increased his "multi-peril" insurance from $30,000 to $40,000. He owed the business' former owner $8,000 on a note which had been due eighteen months prior to the fire; he was behind in monthly rental payments to the building's owner. Business had not been doing as well as he had expected. Mulkey and his wife had been thinking of selling the business and had potential buyers. About three months before the fire, Mulkey had reapplied for employment at Lockheed and had been mailed a notice of his rehiring ten days before the fire. Mulkey had removed an antique organ from the store the night before the fire because, he said, he had a potential buyer for the organ whose name he could not remember at trial; but he left the top part of the organ in the store and had intended to get it the next day.

A waitress in a nearby restaurant, also owned and operated by Mulkey, saw Mulkey and Disharoon together drive up to the restaurant the evening before the fire. Early on Friday, the morning of the fire, two men saw Disharoon enter the men's store building with a key and saw him leave shortly thereafter. The waitress saw Disharoon come in the restaurant and speak to Mulkey early that Friday morning. On Wednesday, five days after the fire, but before Disharoon was arrested, Disharoon and a companion stopped at the restaurant because, as Disharoon told the companion, "this man here owes me some money that owns this restaurant"; when the two went inside, a man identified as Mulkey came over to Disharoon, and Disharoon said, "Have you got me some money" or "Do you have any money?" Mulkey gave Disharoon an undetermined amount of money, and Disharoon put it in his pocket without counting it. Disharoon's wife had been working for about five years in the restaurant as the cook; apparently Disharoon frequently visited the restaurant for hours at a time and had worked there himself on occasion. Mulkey stated that he occasionally lent Disharoon money, and that is what he was doing that day.

Disharoon testified that he and Mulkey first discussed burning the building two or three weeks before the fire; that Mulkey offered him $1,000 to do the job but never discussed any particular time that Disharoon was to do it, until the Thursday before Disharoon set the fire on Friday. Disharoon had earlier bought a five-gallon can of mineral spirits and set it in the back of Mulkey's truck. On Thursday evening before the fire, Disharoon helped Mulkey and Mulkey's teenaged son move the antique organ out of the store because, he said, Mulkey wanted to move it out before the fire. During this process, Disharoon told Mulkey's son to put the mineral spirits can in the back of the store. They also removed some tuxedos from the store. Afterwards, Disharoon and Mulkey drove back to the restaurant where Disharoon had left his car. Disharoon and Mulkey sat a while in the restaurant, and Disharoon testified that Mulkey then removed the store key from a large key ring containing many keys and gave the key to Disharoon. Disharoon testified that he went back to the store that evening and poured the mineral spirits on the stock and especially under the Tots & Teens counter; that Mulkey had specifically told him to pour it there because the Tots & Teens "was in a tight too." Disharoon went back and set the fire the next morning, intending to burn only the stock because, he said, "I wasn't wanting to burn the whole town up." He first had taken his wife to the restaurant and then went back to the restaurant after he set the fire; there he saw Mulkey and gave him back the key. There had been no agreement as to when Mulkey was to pay Disharoon.

There was evidence that there had been a disagreement or dispute between Mulkey and Disharoon concerning some insurance proceeds allegedly due Disharoon's wife, and that Disharoon had accused Mulkey of pocketing the money; although the insurance agent explained the situation to Disharoon, Disharoon never did understand it, and there was evidence he had made threats because of it. An associate of Mulkey testified that Mulkey never kept his store key on his large key ring, but carried it separately in his pocket. Disharoon admitted that he had written letters to a man named Jacoby, whom he had earlier met in jail, but denied that he had ever sent Jacoby a letter stating that h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Whidby v. Columbine Carrier, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 15 Abril 1987
    ...The function of the trial court in determining the admissibility of evidence is to determine its legality. See Mulkey v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 305, 270 S.E.2d 816. As to that question, "[t]he policy of Georgia ... is to admit evidence, even if its admissibility is doubtful, because it is ......
  • Boothe v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 2013
    ...to determine whether what is offered as evidence is the best form accessible to the court.” (Citation omitted.) Mulkey v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 307, 270 S.E.2d 816 (1980). Here, the “writing” at issue consists of two police sketches, and, it is undisputed that the State did nothing to acc......
  • Hodges v. Vara, A04A1644.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 29 Julio 2004
    ...evidence from Williams was unavailable. OCGA §§ 24-5-1(b); 24-5-2; 24-5-3; 24-5-4; Ellis v. Doe, supra at 259; Mulkey v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 306-307, 270 S.E.2d 816 (1980) (an abuse of discretion to deny oral testimony when written notes were shown to have been destroyed). Here the orig......
  • Hufstetler v. State, 67571
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 11 Mayo 1984
    ...available the letter itself is the best evidence of what is in it, and oral testimony is therefore inadmissible." Mulkey v. State, 155 Ga.App. 304, 306, 270 S.E.2d 816 (1980). The record discloses no evidence that the subject letter was inaccessible. Therefore, the trial court properly sust......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT