Peppers v. State, S91A0143
| Decision Date | 20 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S91A0143,S91A0143 |
| Citation | 261 Ga. 338,404 S.E.2d 788 |
| Parties | PEPPERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Alex R. Zipperer, Ashman & Zipperer, Savannah, for Peppers.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., David T. Lock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Savannah, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., C.A. Benjamin Woolf, Atty., State Law Dept., Atlanta, for State.
The appellant, Hoyt C. Peppers, Jr., was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 We affirm.
The body of the victim was found in her locked automobile in a shopping center parking lot on Wilmington Island. The keys to the vehicle and to the home shared by the victim and the appellant were in the vehicle's ignition switch. She was attired in mismatched clothing. Blood was found on her hands and around her mouth, and she had visible injuries to her wrists and ankles. The victim's injuries were consistent with being bound at the wrists and ankles, with being struck and dragged and having sustained a sexual assault. However, the victim's clothing did not have any associated defects to indicate that she was wearing the clothing when her injuries occurred.
The autopsist determined the cause of death was strangulation. In addition, the victim suffered a number of other cuts, scrapes and bruises, including abrasions to the chest consistent with having been bitten.
In the course of their investigation, police officers discovered a trail of blood between the bedroom and the garage of the home. Blood stains were found on a throw rug in the bedroom and on the bed covers. Blood stained pants and curtains belonging to the appellant were recovered from a dry cleaner where they had been taken two days after the body had been found. Tests confirmed that the pants were stained with human blood. Seminal fluid containing no sperm was found on a pillow sham. The appellant had undergone a vasectomy. A state expert testified that hairs found on the victim's body were consistent with the head and body hair of the appellant. There was no evidence of a forced entry into the house, and all valuables were in place.
At the time of the murder, the appellant was having substantial financial difficulties, and was involved in negotiations to open a restaurant on Wilmington Island. He was the beneficiary of the victim's substantial property and life insurance. He admitted that he was having several on-going extramarital affairs. Testimony established that the appellant proposed marriage to at least one of his lovers while the victim was still alive. One of the women with whom the appellant was involved indicated that when she and the appellant had intercourse he would become rough with her breasts consistent with some of the injuries on the victim's body. The woman who received the marriage proposal testified that the appellant bit her while engaging in cunnilingus. Other witnesses testified that the appellant described certain injuries to the victim's ankles, but the police testified that they had not told the appellant of those ankle injuries.
1. The appellant claims that he is due a new trial because the evidence presented against him was circumstantial and did not, as a matter of law, exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. We find no error. Under White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 107, 317 S.E.2d 196 (1984), "circumstantial evidence must exclude only reasonable inferences and hypotheses and it is not necessary that such evidence be devoid of every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt." The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the appellant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and no new trial was required.
2. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and admitting testimony concerning the biting incident during the act of oral sex. He alleges that the evidence was unduly prejudicial because, under OCGA § 16-6-2, oral sex is a felony for which he was not charged, and the admission was reversible error because there was insufficient similarity between that act and the offense of murder. However, O'Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 318 S.E.2d 66 (1984), states:
Evidence of another crime is admissible to show motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind or course of conduct, if some logical connection can be shown between the independent crime and the crime charged other than by showing bad character; this rule has been most liberally extended in the areas of sexual offenses. [Cits.] To be admissible there must be evidence that the defendant was the perpetrator of the independent crime and there must be sufficient similarity between the independent crime and the offense charged that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cit.]
The "rule in Georgia is that if the admissibility of evidence is doubtful, the evidence should be admitted and its weight and effect should be left for jury determination." Bashlor v. State, 165 Ga.App. 329, 299 S.E.2d 418 (1983).
The evidence concerning the biting incident during an act of sodomy was admissible as a similar transaction tending to prove the appellant's bent of mind. It was also admissible to show that the obsessive and violent sexual nature of the appellant fit the profile of the hypothetical sexual attacker which the appellant attempted to offer as an alternative to his guilt. Finally, the evidence was admissible to prove the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raulerson v. State
...of the similar crime evidence was proper. Andrews v. State, 267 Ga. 473(2), 480 S.E.2d 29 (1997). 573 (1997); Peppers v. State, 261 Ga. 338(2), 404 S.E.2d 788 (1991). The burglaries were committed three weeks apart in midmorning in residences located in rural areas of adjoining counties and......
-
Butts v. State
...§ 24-3-50 a "confession" is a statement that "acknowledges all of the essential elements of the crime"). 22. Peppers v. State, 261 Ga. 338, 340-341(4), 404 S.E.2d 788 (1991). 23. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687(III), 104 S.Ct. 2052; Smith, 253 Ga. at 783(1), 325 S.E.2d 24. See Holbrook v. Flynn......
-
Green v. State
...sexual activity in very unpleasant locations. See Spencer v. State, 268 Ga. 85, 86(2), 485 S.E.2d 477 (1997); Peppers v. State, 261 Ga. 338, 339–340(2), 404 S.E.2d 788 (1991). Thus, “evidence of crimes committed on one date would be admissible in the trial of those perpetrated on the other ......
-
Scoggins v. State
...1100, 1122 (1992), aff'd sub nom. Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994); Peppers v. State, 261 Ga. 338, 404 S.E.2d 788, 791 (1991); Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss.1976); State v. Baker, 293 S.W.2d 900, 905 (Mo.1956). The State urges us to ......