Rich v. State

Decision Date20 February 1985
Docket NumberNo. 41253,41253
Citation325 S.E.2d 761,254 Ga. 11
PartiesRICH v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

R. John Boemanns, Woodside & Boemanns, Blairsville, for Roy rich.

V.D. Stockton, Dist. Atty., Clayton, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Dunn, for the State.

BELL, Justice.

Rich was convicted of the murder of Leonard Clonts, and received a life sentence. 1 Rich's appointed counsel has filed a request for permission to withdraw from the case pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 49 (1967). 2

Rich and the victim had known each other for about forty years before the homicide. A witness who had known both of them for several years described them as "drinking buddies," and testified that Rich had previously expressed to him the desire to kill Clonts if given the chance.

Clonts was shot in Rich's yard. Rich testified that Clonts was visiting with him the day he was shot, and had spent the previous night with him. Rich said that while he was inside his house, he overheard an argument outside, and then a shot. He went outside to investigate, and discovered Clonts lying in the yard. Rich testified that he then went to call an ambulance, and was first picked up by neighbors Jackie Burrell, James Meshner, and Dewayne Meshner. He said that they took him to a store near Murphy, North Carolina, where he called an ambulance. After they dropped him back at his house, he saw Jenny Little, another neighbor, who also took him to call an ambulance. Rich admitted that he fired his shotgun on the day of the shooting, but said he fired it at a dog stealing a chicken.

Jackie Burrell, the Meshners, and Jenny Little all contradicted Rich's version of events. Burrell and the two Meshners testified that when they picked up Rich he was intoxicated, and was carrying a shotgun that had tape wrapped around the stock. He told them that he had shot Leonard Clonts. They testified that they drove Rich to a local store because he told them he wanted to call an ambulance, and then drove him home. They did not wait for the ambulance or the police to arrive because they had been drinking, and did not want to get into trouble.

Jenny Little testified that while she was driving home she saw Rich walking on the side of the road, and stopped and picked him up. She said that Rich asked her to take him some place to call an ambulance. When she inquired why he needed an ambulance, Rich told her that he and Clonts had argued and fought; that he shot Clonts when Clonts came after him with an axe; and that Clonts was at that time laying in his yard. Little testified that she took Rich to her sister's house, located about one mile from where she picked up Rich, and about 30 minutes later returned to Rich's house, where they found many people milling around.

Clonts' body was found lying approximately 47 feet from Rich's house and 59 feet from a spent 16 gauge shotgun shell. A 16 gauge shotgun with tape wrapped around the stock was also found in Rich's pick-up truck. The autopsist testified that Clonts died as the result of a shotgun wound to the abdomen and chest. Forensic evidence established that the spent casing found at the crime scene was fired from Rich's gun, and that Clonts was shot from a distance of about 35 feet.

Evidence of a prior homicide involving Rich was admitted into evidence by the trial court. That incident occurred in 1972, and involved another of Rich's "drinking buddies," Oscar McClure, who lived with Rich. On the day of that shooting, Union County Sheriff Harlan Duncan saw Rich walking on the side of the road near Rich's house carrying a .22 caliber rifle with blood splattered on him. Duncan stopped and picked up Rich, and Rich told him that McClure had been shot, and that he was going for help. Duncan found McClure in Rich's home with a gunshot wound in the back of his head. Duncan testified that Rich had been drinking heavily. Rich was tried for murder, and acquitted.

1. The only arguable ground for appeal raised by Rich's counsel is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the 1972 homicide. We find no merit to this argument.

Evidence of other criminal acts of the defendant may be admitted if it " 'is substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that (the defendant) committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character...." Walraven v. State, 250 Ga. 401, 407, 297 S.E.2d 278 (1982) (quoting McCormick on Evidence, § 190 at 447, 2d Ed., 1972). Accord, Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 755(4), 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983). Purposes for which other crimes evidence may be offered include motive, intent, bent of mind, course of conduct, absence of mistake or accident (both are aspects of intent), plan or scheme, and identity. Williams v. State, supra, 251 Ga. at 755, 312 S.E.2d 40; Hamilton v. State, 239 Ga. 72, 75, 235 S.E.2d 515 (1977). "To render evidence of extrinsic offenses admissible for any of these purposes, the state must show that the defendant was the perpetrator of the extrinsic offenses, and that there is a sufficient similarity or connection between the extrinsic offense and the offense charged, such that proof of the former tends to prove the latter." Williams v. State, supra, 251 Ga. at 755, 312 S.E.2d 40.

In the instant case, Sheriff Duncan's testimony sufficiently proved that Rich was the perpetrator of the extrinsic offense. See Kilgore v. State, 251 Ga. 291(3) (b), 305 S.E.2d 82 (1983); Williams v. State, supra, 251 Ga. at 784, 312 S.E.2d 40. The second factor for the admission of extrinsic offense evidence was also satisfied. Both crimes involved "drinking buddies" of Rich who were killed at his residence with a firearm. There was evidence that Rich had been drinking heavily at the time of both incidents, and that, after both incidents, Rich walked from the scene and told people who stopped to assist him that he was going for medical assistance for the victims. These similarities render evidence of the extrinsic offense admissible as relevant to Rich's course of conduct relating to the shooting of his "drinking buddy" Leonard Clonts and thus to Rich's identity as the perpetrator of that crime.

Although not raised by Rich's counsel, two other factors relating to the admission of the extrinsic offense evidence merit our attention.

One important consideration is whether Rich's acquittal on the 1972 murder charge renders evidence of that offense inadmissible. See Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351(1)(b), 314 S.E.2d 621 (1984). We need not, however, address the merits of this issue, as Rich failed to properly preserve this objection for appeal. Rich's counsel initially filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the introduction of any evidence concerning the 1972 offense. One of the grounds for that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Toomer v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 19 Noviembre 2012
    ...is precluded from raising this claim on appeal. See Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 114, 117, 587 S.E.2d 9 (2003); Rich v. State, 254 Ga. 11, 13–14, 325 S.E.2d 761 (1985). 4. Appellant asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. To prevail on this claim, he must show that his......
  • Peoples v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 10 Abril 2014
    ...to prove such things as motive, intent, bent of mind, course of conduct, intent, plan, scheme, or identity. See Rich v. State, 254 Ga. 11, 13, 325 S.E.2d 761 (1985); Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 408–411, 46 S.E. 897 (1904).7 To determine admissibility of such evidence, the trial court mus......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 11 Marzo 1988
    ...was elicited by defendant. A waiver of the right not to have his character placed into evidence occurred. See Rich v. State, 254 Ga. 11, 14(1), 325 S.E.2d 761 (1985). 7. In Enumeration 6, defendant seeks reversal pursuant to his contention that the trial court failed to perform its duty und......
  • Simmons v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1996
    ...prior difficulty and the crime charged does not necessarily render the evidence inadmissible as a matter of law. See Rich v. State, 254 Ga. 11, 14(1), 325 S.E.2d 761 (1985); Starnes v. State, 205 Ga.App. 882, 883, 424 S.E.2d 4 (1992). Moreover, whereas the evidence indicated difficulties 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