Patterson v. State, S94A1413

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the CourtBarbara B. Conroy, Asst. Dist. Atty.; CARLEY
Citation264 Ga. 593,449 S.E.2d 97
Docket NumberNo. S94A1413,S94A1413
Decision Date31 October 1994

Page 97

449 S.E.2d 97
264 Ga. 593

No. S94A1413.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct. 31, 1994.

[264 Ga. 594] Melissa M. Nelson, DeKalb County Public Defender, Decatur, for Patterson.

Barbara B. Conroy, Asst. Dist. Atty., J. Tom Morgan, Dist. Atty., Decatur, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael D. Groves, Asst. Atty. Gen., State Law Dept., Atlanta, Anne G. Maseth, Stone Mountain Judicial Atty., Decatur, for State.

[264 Ga. 593] CARLEY, Justice.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of malice murder and sentenced to life. His motion for new trial was denied and he appeals. 1

1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. It was undisputed that appellant shot the victim several times, twice in the head. He urges, however, that there was no proof of his intention to kill.

" 'It is for the (trier of fact) to determine whether any killing is intentional and malicious from all the facts and circumstances. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Latimore v. State, 262 Ga. 448, 450, 421 S.E.2d 281 (1992). The relevant and material facts and circumstances in the instant case include the following:

Page 98

Appellant became angry because the victim had not repaid a small loan. After stating that he would shoot the victim, appellant obtained a gun and, accompanied by several friends, went to confront the victim at his place of work. One of appellant's friends physically assaulted the victim. Although appellant contended that he shot the victim to protect his friend, there was significant evidence to the contrary. After first shooting the victim in the leg, appellant deliberately took aim and fired two shots into the victim's head. Appellant then fled the scene.

From this evidence, the jury was authorized to find proof of appellant's guilt of malice murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also Latimore v. State, supra. Accordingly, appellant's enumeration of the general grounds is without merit.

2. On two occasions, the trial court, in response to the jury's request, recharged on the definitions of murder and voluntary manslaughter. [264 Ga. 594] On yet a third occasion, the jury requested that it be provided with a written recharge on the definition of voluntary manslaughter. In response to this request, the trial court provided a written recharge on the definitions of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Appellant objected to "the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • McTaggart v. State, A97A0125
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 11, 1997
    ...or recharge on a particular point, the trial court has discretion to also give or not give additional instructions." Patterson v. State, 264 Ga. 593, 594(2), 449 S.E.2d 97 (1994). "In determining whether the recharge contained error, it is fundamental that we must look at not only the recha......
  • Rickman v. State, S03A1134.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 22, 2003
    ...443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 3. Collins v. State, 276 Ga. 726, 727, 583 S.E.2d 26 (2003). 4. Patterson v. State, 264 Ga. 593, 594, 449 S.E.2d 97 (1994); Miner v. State, 268 Ga. 67-68, 485 S.E.2d 456 (1997); Columbus v. State, 270 Ga. 658, 666, 513 S.E.2d 498 (1999); J......
  • Columbus v. State, S98A1834.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • March 15, 1999
    ...264 Ga. 31, 32(4), 440 S.E.2d 461 (1994). 23. Leonard v. State, 269 Ga. 867, 870-871(3), 506 S.E.2d 853 (1998). 24. Patterson v. State, 264 Ga. 593, 594(2), 449 S.E.2d 97 25. See Connor v. State, 268 Ga. 656, 657(2), 492 S.E.2d 669 (1997). 26. See Division 2(c), supra. --------...
  • Terry v. State, A96A1496
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1996
    ...objections, the court did not abuse its discretion in not sua sponte charging on the lesser included offense. Patterson v. State, 264 Ga. 593, 594(2), 449 S.E.2d 97 (1994); Miller v. State, 221 Ga.App. 718, 719, 472 S.E.2d 697 5. The fifth enumeration is that the court erred in accepting th......
  • 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