Nettles v. State, 38877
| Decision Date | 08 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38877,38877 |
| Parties | Clyde Algie NETTLES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
K. Van Banke, Watson, Lawson, Joyner & Banke, Jonesboro, for Clyde Algie Nettles.
Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted and tried for the offenses of murder and armed robbery in Clayton County. He was convicted of murder and theft by taking and sentenced to life in prison with twelve months to run consecutively. Three enumerations of error are raised on appeal of the convictions and we affirm.
1. In his first enumeration the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The victim was last seen leaving Stan's Bar-B-Que Restaurant and Lounge in College Park, Georgia, in the early morning hours of February 21, 1982. His body was found in a wooded area accessible by car about 200 feet from a road. There was one gunshot wound to the head and other bruises on the head area. No identification was found on the body but investigators were able to identify the victim and inquiries led them to Stan's Bar-B-Que.
It was established that both the appellant and victim frequented Stan's and although they were not acquainted with each other, each was known to Stan's employees. The two men began drinking with each other on the night of February 20, and continued talking and drinking into the early morning hours of February 21. The victim had come by taxi and at some point before leaving, it was decided that appellant would give him a ride home. An employee of the lounge testified that the victim generally carried a gun which he always gave to her on his arrival and she would return it to him when he left. This procedure was followed on the night of the shooting. When the body was found there was no gun at the scene.
When the appellant was initially questioned by police he stated that he was alone when he left the establishment. After he was taken into custody he gave a statement admitting that he drove the victim to the area where the body was found and that he did shoot him. According to this statement the men agreed to drive around and drink some more in the car and the victim passed out. The appellant stated that he drove off of the road and into the woods so that he could try and "sober up" the victim to find out how to take him home. According to the appellant, he walked around to the passenger side of the car. As he tried to get the victim out, the victim became belligerent and came out of the car swinging at him. At this point appellant states that he saw the victim's gun still in the car so he reached for it and began using it as a club, trying unsuccessfully to knock him out. He explained that the gun went off by accident as the victim came towards him. During this statement the appellant claimed that he did not take the victim's wallet or watch and that he threw the gun out of the car as he drove back to the road.
The next day appellant gave a statement admitting that before he left the scene he took the wallet and watch from the body. He disposed of the wallet and kept the money. He also admitted that he had kept the gun until the next day when he sold it to a man in Forest Park.
At trial the appellant's testimony covered the same basic facts. When describing the shooting he stated that he cocked the gun and told the victim to stay away. He stated that the victim was about three feet from him when the gun just "went off." He testified that he was afraid and upset and doesn't know why he took the watch and wallet or why he didn't seek help after the shooting.
It was established at trial that the cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the head and that the gun was over two feet from the point of entry at the time of discharge. Investigators testified that the victim's watch was found at the appellant's home. It was also established that appellant had sold the gun in exchange for a quantity of marijuana. The gun was recovered and it was identified by witnesses as the gun the victim carried on the night he disappeared.
The appellant contends that since his own statements are the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez-Nova v. State
...part of the defendant's statement or testimony.” Lewis, 292 Ga.App. at 262(1)(a), 663 S.E.2d 721. See also Nettles v. State, 249 Ga. 787, 788–789(1), 294 S.E.2d 492 (1982). Here, anything in Rodriguez–Nova's statement that could support his defense of voluntary manslaughter was contradicted......
-
Adams v. State
...statements, and his alibi testimony at trial. Brown v. State, 249 Ga. 805, 806, 294 S.E.2d 510 (1982); Nettles v. State, 249 Ga. 787, 789(1), 294 S.E.2d 492 (1982). "[A] person who fatally wounds another, even in self-defense, is not entitled to hasten the victim's death by continuing to pu......
-
McLeod v. State
...erroneous. The court did not err in holding appellant's confession to have been freely and voluntarily made. Cf. Nettles v. State, 249 Ga. 787(2), 294 S.E.2d 492 (1982). 2. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress because his arrest was no......
-
Rodriguez-Nova v. State, S14A0808.
...the exculpatory part of the defendant's statement or testimony." Lewis, 292 Ga. App. at 262 (1) (a). See also Nettles v. State, 249 Ga. 787, 788-789 (1) (294 SE2d 492) (1982). Here, anything in Rodriguez-Nova's statement that could support his defense of voluntary manslaughter was contradic......