Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. S89A0128,S89A0128 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Donald E. Strickland, Albany, for Roberts.
Britt R. Priddy, Dist. Atty., Albany, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, C.A. Benjamin Woolf, for State.
C.J. Roberts, a.k.a. C.J. Pitts, appeals his conviction of the malice murder of Geraldine Hill, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. 1 We affirm.
1. The evidence authorized the finding of the following facts. Roberts and the victim had been involved in an extra-marital relationship for some 15 years. The relationship had been broken on at least one occasion, but had resumed. The victim's daughter testified that Roberts had hit and beaten her mother, and the victim's sons testified that the victim feared firearms, and did not own a firearm. The victim's daughter testified that she had never seen her mother with a handgun. The testimony indicated that Roberts knocked on the door of the victim's residence; that the victim answered the knock on the door, and went outside; and that the victim and Roberts spoke together for approximately 10 minutes. A neighbor then heard two gunshots. The victim entered the house, and stated, "He shot me, he shot me." Roberts, with a pistol in his hand, was observed walking to his automobile, which was parked across the street. He entered the vehicle, and left the scene. Medical testimony indicated that the victim died of gunshot wounds. Hand wipings from Robert's hands revealed the presence of elements consistent with gunshot residue. After Miranda warnings, Roberts stated that he and the victim began "to fuss" on the porch, and that he fired, believing that the victim "had something to hurt me." On trial, Roberts testified that the victim had a .25 caliber pistol "in her bosom," and that she was going to pull it out; that he fired in self-defense, not intending to kill the victim. No weapon was found at the scene, and Roberts admitted throwing his pistol into a river. Medical testimony indicated that the fatal wound was in the victim's back.
On appeal, a conviction will be affirmed if this Court determines that, under the evidence, any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Having reviewed the record, we hold that the evidence at trial meets the Jackson v. Virginia test. The appellant makes his arguments based not upon the sufficiency of the evidence, but upon the credibility of witnesses, which is not a question for the appellate court but is a question for the jury under proper instruction from the court. OCGA § 24-9-80; Moore v. State, 255 Ga. 148, 335 S.E.2d 868 (1985) and cit.
2. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not disqualifying the entire jury panel because of comments made by one prospective juror.
During voir dire, the prosecution directed a question to the prospective juror, Mr. Stone, regarding a relative of Mr. Stone's who had been involved in a violent crime. The following dialogue ensued:
Prosecution: Now, this is directed to Mr. Stone. Sir, I heard what you were saying that you had a relative that was seriously injured by a person with a gun; was that person with a gun somebody that your relative knew or was he somebody that was a stranger?
Prospective juror: A stranger, and anyone that kills someone should go to the chair.
Following this dialogue, the appellant objected to any further questioning of Mr. Stone, as his answer had disqualified him from the jury panel. The court questioned Mr. Stone further:
The court subsequently excused prospective juror Stone from the panel, whereupon the appellant objected to the entire panel because of the comment that Mr. Stone had just made. The court overruled the objection.
Neither a motion to disqualify the entire panel nor a motion for a continuance in order to obtain another jury panel was made, and curative instructions were not requested. The appellant's challenge to the array was not in writing, as required by OCGA § 15-12-162, Porch v. State, 207 Ga. 645(2), 63 S.E.2d 902 (1951), nor was it later reduced to writing, as required in Smith v. State, 151 Ga.App. 697, 699(4), 261 S.E.2d 439 (1979). The trial court did not abuse his discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lucky
...defendant should have been granted new venire, when a venire person's remarks "branded the accused as a sex deviate"); Roberts v. State, 259 Ga. 441, 383 S.E.2d 872 (1989) (the judge denied the defendant's motion to strike the panel where one venire person said killers "should go to the [el......
-
Carver v. State, s. A91A1881
...not be deemed to have abused its discretion in the control of voir dire by failing to give relief not requested. Roberts v. State, 259 Ga. 441, 443, 383 S.E.2d 872 (1989). Error occurs only where a judge without justification overrules a challenge for cause and leaves a biased juror on the ......
-
Smith v. State, No. S03A0968.
...question for the appellate court but is a question for the jury under proper instruction from the court. [Cits.]" Roberts v. State, 259 Ga. 441, 442(1), 383 S.E.2d 872 (1989). 2. The grand jury indicted Smith on four charges: malice murder; felony murder; aggravated assault; and possession ......
-
Leonard v. State, S98A0621.
...give additional relief that was not requested. See Lyon v. State, 262 Ga. 247, 249(3)(a), 416 S.E.2d 523 (1992); Roberts v. State, 259 Ga. 441, 443(2), 383 S.E.2d 872 (1989). 3. Leonard employed a DNA testing expert who reviewed the lab notes and results of the State-directed DNA tests. The......