Patillo v. State
| Decision Date | 27 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45147,45147 |
| Citation | 258 Ga. 255,368 S.E.2d 493 |
| Parties | PATILLO v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Willis B. Sparks III, Dist. Atty., Virgil L. Adams, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Shelling, Jr., Asst. Atty., Gen., for the State.
Keith Patillo was convicted in Bibb County of malice murder and sentenced to death. This is his appeal. 1
1. The victim, 19-year-old Stephanie McLamb, met Patillo one Sunday afternoon at Central City Park in Macon. He called her a few days later, and he and the victim and her friend Lisa met and spent several hours together, driving around in the defendant's car. Then Patillo stated that he had to meet his brother at eleven, and he dropped Lisa off at her home.
Around midnight, Patillo called his roommate, saying he needed a ride home; his car was stuck. The roommate picked him up at Central City Park. Patillo had blood on his legs and carried a blood-stained baseball bat. He explained that he had been attacked by two men. However, he did not want to call the police or to get his car that night. When he got home, he rinsed off the bat and took a bath.
The next morning, Charles Hamlin went to his okra field in the lower Poplar Street area of Macon, not far from the city's water and sewage treatment facility. A car was stuck in a muddy lane that partly circled the field, and Patillo was trying to get it out. Hamlin used his truck to pull the defendant's car free. Then he noticed some clothing near a "pile of brush ... beside the ditch on the edge of the field," some 80 feet from where the defendant's car had been. Hamlin went to look, and, under the pile of brush, observed a nearly-nude female body. Patillo denied knowing anything about the body, and gave Hamlin a false name. Then he left, and Hamlin called the police.
In the meantime, the victim's mother had called the police when her daughter did not return home the night before. Lisa furnished the police with the defendant's first name, as well as a description of him and his car that matched the information given by Hamlin. Patillo was soon arrested.
He called his roommate from jail and apologized for what he had done, asking him not to "hate him for it." According to the roommate, "[Patillo] said that they had went down and had sex and they got stuck in the car and that she had threatened to call the police and say that he had raped her because he did not get her back home Patillo wrote his friend Gary French a letter, explaining what had happened as follows:
on time and he said, 'I just went berserk, I reckon....' "
Gary, I am sorry that I Did Knot come clean your house last Friday ... I Had went off with a Girl and then we got Drunk and I decided that I wanted [to have sex]. to make a long Story short I got [messed] up and stayed out with her for a while Well, it was getting late and She was [complaining] about going Home and she [made me angry]. She kept on [messing] with me, Finley I got Ready to take her Home and the ... car was stuck. So we decided to Just [have sex] for a while and then worry about the car. Well, we [did], and then we tryed to get the car but went nowhere so She started [complaining] to me and She said that she would just go get the police and tell them I raped her. Well after that she really had me [angry] so I decided that she was not going no where and then I killed her. So I am now in Jail for murder and I don't know when I will get out.... [A]s for "Steve," tell Him when you see Him that I might be out sooner than I think for pleading insanity and I will be looking for [him] He is next on my "list " Because I am sick and tired of everbody [messing] with me.... Hope to see you soon. and Don't Forget to tell Steve I am looking For [him] next and I mean that. He is next on the "park killings." tell him He better watch [himself] close because He Just might Have lusaville slugger printed In His Head next....
The letter was signed, "Keith the 'Soko.' " Next to the signature was a drawing of a baseball bat.
The autopsist testified that there were at least 10 major blunt force lacerations about the victim's head, and others that were less severe. He also identified a number of "defensive" wounds on her hands and arms, indicating that she had tried unsuccessfully to ward off the blows to her head.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, is sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of malice murder. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Patillo was not charged with the offense of rape. However, sperm and seminal fluid were found in the victim's vagina, and the defendant admitted having sexual intercourse with her. The defendant cross-examined state's witnesses concerning whether a blanket had been found in his car and whether the victim's clothing had been torn, in an effort to support his theory that he was guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, i.e., that he and the victim had engaged in consensual sex but that, when she became concerned that she was going to be very late getting home and left, threatening to explain her lateness by claiming that Patillo had raped her, he flew into a rage and killed her. In these circumstances, the state did not err by arguing to the jury that it was a more plausible inference from the evidence that the defendant had raped and killed the victim and then got stuck in the mud some 80 feet away as he was trying to leave than that he and the victim had engaged in consensual sex in a mosquito-infested swamp or that the victim, with no inkling of possible danger, had attempted to leave the scene of her tryst with almost no clothes on. Compare Lipham v. State, 257 Ga. 808 (1a), 364 S.E.2d 840 (1988); Tucker v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1480, 1506-07 (11th Cir.1985).
3. On the Thursday before the trial began on Monday, the defendant moved for a continuance. His psychologist (retained with funds provided by the court) had administered certain psychological tests, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and had submitted them for a computer-assisted tabulation and analysis. She had not yet received the results; when she did, she would need "several hours" to review them.
The court denied the motion for continuance, stating, however, that "[i]f after the voir dire process ... Dr. Cleveland needs additional time ... whatever time you all The guilt phase of the trial concluded with the jury's verdict just before lunchtime on Friday. The court asked the defendant's lead attorney if he would be ready to proceed with the sentencing phase of the trial at 3:00 p.m. He answered in the affirmative, and the defendant's psychologist testified that evening.
need to confer with her to be prepared for trial will be no problem at all ... if you can show me that that would be of benefit to Mr. Patillo. But given ... the time we have spent preparing for trial, the court feels comfortable in denying the motion for continuance."
There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of a continuance. Ealy v. State, 251 Ga. 426(3), 306 S.E.2d 275 (1983).
4. In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court held that where the credibility of a prosecution witness is an important issue in the case, "evidence of any understanding or agreement" with that witness "for prosecutorial leniency" is relevant to the credibility of the witness, and should be disclosed to the defense. 405 U.S. at 151 and 155, 92 S.Ct. at 764-65 and 766. The defendant claims the state failed to reveal to the defense that it had agreed to assist a convicted felon in exchange for his testimony, notwithstanding a defense Giglio motion explicitly requesting the disclosure of any such agreements. Resolution of this claim of error requires a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the pre- and post-trial discussions between the witness and the state and, as well, the evidence presented at the sentencing phase of the trial. In part (a), below, we summarize the relevant sentencing-phase evidence. In part (b), we set forth the evidence presented at the hearing on the extraordinary motion for new trial, and in part (c) we explain why we do not find reversible error.
(a) David Chatman was the state's only witness at the sentencing phase of the trial. He had a prior record of conviction for theft by deception and forgery, and was in jail because his probation was revoked. After revealing to the jury Chatman's criminal record and the reason for his incarceration, the state asked him if he had "made ... any deals" in exchange for his testimony in this case. His answer was "no."
Chatman then testified that he had talked to Patillo in jail and that Patillo had explained his crime as follows: "He said that he was supposed to have her home at 12:30 and after he got his car stuck in the mud and he was trying to get her to calm down and she was fussing at him and she said she was going to ... tell her mamma that he had raped her and he said that was the reason he lost his temper and he killed her."
Chatman further testified that Patillo had told him that Chatman described an incident in which the stepmother had tried to embarrass the defendant, and testified that Patillo had explained his feelings on the night of the murder thusly: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, S92P0087
...was a reasonable deduction from the evidence. Wade v. State, 258 Ga. 324, 326-27(5), 368 S.E.2d 482 (1988); Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 257(2), 368 S.E.2d 493 (1988). 7. Searches of the defendant's home were authorized either by warrant or by the consent of the defendant's wife. See Cald......
-
Ware v. State
...to disclose benefits given to witness even though at the time witness agreed to testify no benefits had been given); Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 368 S.E.2d 493, 498 (holding that State should have revealed agreement "no matter how non-promising the agreement was in terms of its prospects......
-
Ledford v. the State.
...(b)(7) statutory aggravating circumstances. See Taylor v. State, 261 Ga. 287, 297(13)(c), 404 S.E.2d 255 (1991); Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 262–263(6), 368 S.E.2d 493 (1988); Jefferson v. State, 256 Ga. 821, 828(9), 353 S.E.2d 468 (1987); Baxter v. State, 254 Ga. 538, 549(20)(b), 331 S.......
-
Parrott v. State
...and assuming further that such an offer constituted the type of agreement that is required to be revealed, see Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 260-261, 368 S.E.2d 493 (1988), we find no harmful error. The alleged offer "was of a non-promising nature," see id. at 261; Fernandez was impeached ......
-
Death Penalty Law - Michael Mears
...543 S.E.2d 682, 682 (2001) (citing O.C.G.A. Sec. 17-10-35 (1997)). 406. Id. 407. Id. at 339, 543 S.E.2d at 683 (quoting Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 255, 368 S.E.2d 493, 494 (1998)). 408. Id. at 338, 543 S.E.2d at 682. 409. Id. 410. Id. at 339, 543 S.E.2d at 682 (citing Thomas v. State, 2......
-
Death Penalty Law - Michael Mears
...273 Ga. 338, 544 S.E.2d 682 (2001). See also O.C.G.A. Sec. 17-10-36. 331. 273 Ga. at 339, 544 S.E.2d at 682 (quoting Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 255 n.l, 368 S.E.2d 493, 494 n.l (1998)). 332. Id. at 338, 543 S.E.2d at 682. 333. Id. at 339, 543 S.E.2d at 682 (citing Thomas v. State, 260 G......
-
The Innocence Checklist
...CONVICTION INTEGRITY PROGRAMS, supra note 256, at 55. 330. E.g., United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682–85 (1985); Patillo v. State, 368 S.E.2d 493, 497 (Ga. 1988); Commonwealth v. Hill, 739 N.E.2d 670, 678 (Mass. 2000); Campbell v. Reed, 594 F.2d 4, 7 (4th Cir. 1979). This factor may b......
-
Professionalism Page
...Law's 1L class on professionalism. The recording is available at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=LKpRfOn0DpM. [6] Patillo v. State, 258 Ga. 255, 262, 368 S.E.2d 493, 498 (1988). --------- ...