Pierce v. State, 28292
| Decision Date | 18 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28292,28292 |
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 159,231 Ga. 731 |
| Parties | William J. PIERCE, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Alvin Leaphart, Jr., Jesup, for appellant.
Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., Jesup, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His amended motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court and this appeal presents for consideration several enumerations of error allegedly committed in the trial court requiring a new trial. Held:
1. The denial of a motion for psychiatric examination, filed on behalf of appellant in the trial court, is first asserted as error. The record discloses that appellant is indigent and was unable to pay for a psychiatric examination. Appellant refused to submit to a medical examination by two local physicians offered by the trial court without expense to appellant. There is no evidence extablishing the medical examinations suggested by the trial court would be inadequate or otherwise substantiating the need for examination only by a psychiatrist as demanded by appellant. We hold this enumeration of error is not a meritorious ground for a new trial in this case. See Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783(1), 147 S.E.2d 299.
2. Appellant also asserts as error that a prospective juror placed appellant's character in issue by referring to appellant as an 'ex-con' when the juror was being questioned on voir dire. The record fails to show all of the circumstances of this occurrence. It is incumbent upon appellant to demonstrate reversible error from the record and it has not been done as to this enumeration of error. The control of voir dire examination is vested in the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with by this court unless the record clearly shows an abuse of that discretion. Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700(5), 198 S.E.2d 865. No abuse of the trial court's discretion has been shown in this case.
3. Other enumerations of error complain of the admission into evidence of various in-custodial statements, together with a confession made by appellant, and a pistol alleged by the state to have been the murder weapon. Appellant's counsel argues that the 'totality of the circumstances' surrounding these incriminating statements and confession show they were involuntary and that recovery of the alleged murder weapon (the pistol) by the law officers resulted from coercion of appellant. At defense counsel's request, a Jackson v. Denno hearing was conducted by the trial court out of the jury's presence. The evidence presented at that hearing shows in part that appellant was first arrested in Emanuel County for theft on a warrant issued in Jefferson County. Appellant was then brought to Jefferson County and afterwards returned to Emanuel County on another warrant issued by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. While appellant was in the Emanuel County jail, he was questioned by the Sheriff of Appling County about the location of a certain .32 calibre Smith & Wesson pistol. The Appling County Sheriff testified at the Denno hearing before the trial court that appellant was fully advised of his rights and voluntarily accompanied and directed the sheriff and others to a location where the pistol was found. Subsequently, appellant was removed to the Appling County jail where he was once more questioned after again being advised of his rights. During this questioning, appellant admitted robbing and shooting the victim in this case. The trial court concluded, after a lengthy hearing out of the jury's presence, that the various statements of appellant were admissible at the trial as appellant was advised of his constitutional rights before he made the statements; that appellant was not offered any hope of reward, and that the statements he made were given freely and voluntarily. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974; and Blair v. State, 230 Ga. 409(3), 197 S.E.2d 362. This court will not reverse the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. State
...of the trial judge and will not be interfered with unless it is clearly shown that such discretion was abused. Pierce v. State, 231 Ga. 731, 204 S.E.2d 159 (1974). The statutory questions to be asked on voir dire on trial for felony are set forth in Code Ann. § 59-806. " 'To disqualify one ......
-
Moore v. State
...231 Ga. 18, 200 S.E.2d 102; Conroy v. State, 231 Ga. 472, 202 S.E.2d 298; Johnson v. State, 231 Ga. 138, 200 S.E.2d 734; Pierce v. State, 231 Ga. 731, 204 S.E.2d 159; Shorts v. State, 231 Ga. 362, 201 S.E.2d 420; Emmett v. State, 232 Ga. 110, 205 S.E.2d ...
-
Strickland v. State
...and the hospitalization of the accused, in the event the jury specified that acquittal was on account of insanity. Pierce v. State, 231 Ga. 731, 733(5), 204 S.E.2d 159 (1974). The State did not have the burden of proving the sanity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Avery, 2......
-
Anderson v. State
...rule has also been applied in Jackson v. Denno hearings by the judge on the matter of the voluntariness of confessions. Pierce v. State, 231 Ga. 731, 732, 204 S.E.2d 159. On appeal on the denial of a motion to suppress the evidence is to be construed most favorably to the upholding of the f......