Ramey v. State, 31590
| Citation | 230 S.E.2d 891,238 Ga. 111 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31590,31590 |
| Parties | Gordon RAMEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
James M. Rea, Clarkesville, for appellant.
V. D. Stockton, Dist. Atty., Clayton, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the murder of his uncle, Otis Kell, sentenced to life imprisonment and appeals.
1. The state's evidence was circumstantial. The victim's daughter testified that on the night of the slaying she overheard a telephone call in which the appellant requested an urgent meeting with the victim. The victim agreed to meet the defendant at 8:15 p.m. and, upon leaving the house, remarked: 'He may be going to shoot me but I got my knife.' At approximately 8:00 p.m. 'or a little after' a shooting was witnessed in a parking lot at Rumsey's store. The witness observed two cars. A white or light colored compact was parked three or four feet in front of a station wagon. He saw a man run toward the rear of the station wagon, and a shot rang out. The running man gasped, and fell at the rear wheel of the station wagon and began attempting to crawl under the car. The assailant approached the victim and fired at least one more shot. The assailant fled in the compact car. There was evidence that appellant drove a white compact car. Later that evening, appellant left a seven millimeter bolt-action Mauser rifle with his brother-in-law. A seven millimeter cartridge case was found at the scene of the crime. Expert testimony established that the cartridge was fired by the rifle The bullet taken from the victim's body was fired by a seven millimeter bolt-action Mauser rifle, but because of the condition of the rifle barrel, it was not possible to establish whether or not the bullet was fired by the particular rifle in question.
At the close of the state's evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. Using, as we must, the 'any evidence test' (see Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 375, 219 S.E.2d 743 (1975); Cunningham v. State, 235 Ga. 126, 218 S.E.2d 854 (1975)) we find the evidence supports the verdict, and therefore appellant's first four enumerations of error, based on the general grounds, and the failure to direct a verdict, are without merit.
2. During direct examination, a state's witness stated that the appellant 'was picked up out of Athens lodged in the jail there and he did have a charge against him there so . . .' The statement was volunteered, and was not called for by the state's question. Appellant's counsel objected to this testimony and moved immediately for a mistrial on the ground that the testimony impermissibly placed appellant's character in issue and was highly prejudicial. The court then instructed the jury on the defendant's presumption of innocence, and his presumption of good character. The court explained that the fact that someone is charged with something does not indicate that he has done something wrong. The court then admonished the jury not to consider the offending remark in their deliberations. We find no error. Woods v. State, 233 Ga. 495, 212 S.E.2d 322 (1975).
3. Appellant's claim that the court erred in admitting, over objection, photographs of the wounds of the deceased, because the photographs were inflammatory and prejudicial is without merit.
4. At the trial, the rifle, the spent cartridge casing, and the bullet were admitted over the objection by appellant that an unbroken chain of custody, as to each item, had not been established. There is no necessity of establishing a chain of custody where the evidence sought to be admitted is 'a distinct physical object that can be identified and differentiated by the senses on observation.' Starks v. State, 113...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. State
...Clayton v. State, 149 Ga.App. 374(1), 254 S.E.2d 495 (1979). The identification of the murder weapon was sufficient. Ramey v. State, 238 Ga. 111(4), 230 S.E.2d 891 (1976). Contrary to the defendant's contention, a trial court may allow a witness to read from his notes if the witness had per......
-
Moore v. State
...were irrelevant and merely inflamed the minds of the jurors. The trial court did not err in admitting the photographs. Ramey v. State, 238 Ga. 111, 230 S.E.2d 891 (1976); Anderson v. State, 233 Ga. 433, 211 S.E.2d 728 (1975); Johnson v. State, 226 Ga. 511, 175 S.E.2d 840 (1970); Bryan v. St......
-
Brooks v. State
...135 Ga.App. 203, 204(1), 217 S.E.2d 343, 345 (1975); Norwood v. State, 238 Ga. 199(2), 232 S.E.2d 70 (1977). See Ramey v. State, 238 Ga. 111, 113(4), 230 S.E.2d 891 (1976). The evidence was sufficient to show that there had not been a substitution, alteration or tampering with the tapes and......
-
Alonso v. State
...objects which could be identified upon mere observation, it was not necessary for the State to prove the chain. Ramey v. State, 238 Ga. 111, 113(4), 230 S.E.2d 891 (1976); Duke v. State, 176 Ga.App. 125, 127(2), 335 S.E.2d 400 c) Enumerations 6 and 7 allege that the contents of the bag were......