Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. S00A0029.,S00A0029. |
| Citation | 272 Ga. 131,527 S.E.2d 845 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jana M. Whaley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Elizabeth A. Baker, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, H. Maddox Kilgore, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Frederick Leon Robinson was convicted of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault arising out of the shooting death of Mario Turner. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the malice murder and appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.1 We affirm.
1. The evidence adduced at trial authorized the jury to find that after Turner switched bags of marijuana with appellant, appellant confronted Turner. The exchange was verbal, but 30 minutes later appellant returned with a double barrel shotgun and, after demanding his marijuana, shot Turner. The victim collapsed to the ground and appellant then stood over him, shooting him again at close range. The victim died on the scene from the shotgun blast to his chest. Three eyewitnesses who knew all the parties involved testified to these events and said there was no physical confrontation between Turner and appellant and the victim did not strike or threaten appellant before the shooting. In his statement to police, appellant confessed that he shot Turner but claimed he did so after Turner had thrown appellant against a trash can and taken $50 from appellant's pocket.
We find the evidence sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant contends the trial court denied him a thorough and sifting cross-examination when it sustained the prosecutor's objection to the relevancy of the defense's cross-examination of witnesses David Reed and Ralph Swinger. Defense counsel sought to cross-examine both men, who were eyewitnesses to the crime, whether they had been searched by the police at the scene of the crime. Appellant asserts that the questioning was relevant and admissible because it would have explained to the jury why police did not find on the victim the $50 appellant claimed the victim had recently taken from him.2 The transcript, however, reveals that defense counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses about the money, e.g., whether they had seen the victim with the money, whether the victim had given them the money or even whether the eyewitnesses had taken the money from the victim. When the State objected to the challenged questions on the basis that a search of the witness was irrelevant to the charged crimes, appellant did not present the argument for the questions' relevancy now proffered on appeal or offer to establish the relevancy in subsequent questions. The sole explanation for the questions was made after the objection was sustained to defense cross-examination of Swinger about being searched, when defense counsel stated that it was relevant "based on the actions that the police took." This did not constitute grounds for the admission of this evidence, where, as here, the defense theory during trial was that the homicide constituted voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. Weems v. State, 269 Ga. 577(2), 501 S.E.2d 806 (1998) (). Under these circumstances we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in disallowing the questions. Id.
3. During cross-examination of the police detective who investigated the crimes, appellant sought to elicit that cocaine was recovered from the victim's hand and pocket. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett v. State
...been relevant and thus admissible at trial. See Bell v. State, 280 Ga. 562, 565–566(4), 629 S.E.2d 213 (2006); Robinson v. State, 272 Ga. 131, 133(3), 527 S.E.2d 845 (2000). As Barrett failed to show that any such evidence would have benefitted the defense, he cannot show that trial counsel......
-
State v. Rice
...use, we conclude that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in excluding that evidence. Compare Robinson v. State, 272 Ga. 131, 527 S.E.2d 845, 846 (2000) (trial court properly excluded cross-examination regarding victim's drug use and possession where proffered expert "could......
-
Dickson v. State, No. A06A0931.
...effect on the issues raised at trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the evidence. See Robinson v. State, 272 Ga. 131, 133(3), 527 S.E.2d 845 (2000); Davidson v. State, 232 Ga.App. 250, 252(2), 501 S.E.2d 510 (1998). Compare Crowe v. State, 277 Ga. 513, 514-515, 591 S......
-
Webb v. State
...at the time of the [incident with Webb]," the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's alcohol use. Robinson v. State, 272 Ga. 131, 133(3), 527 S.E.2d 845 (2000). Compare McWilliams v. State, 280 Ga. 724(4), 632 S.E.2d 127 (2006) (trial court erred in excluding evidence of vic......