Savage v. State

Decision Date14 January 2002
Docket NumberNo. S01A1750.,S01A1750.
CitationSavage v. State, 558 S.E.2d 701, 274 Ga. 692 (Ga. 2002)
PartiesSAVAGE v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Turner & Willis, Christopher W. Willis, Gainesville, for appellant.

Lydia J. Sartain, Dist. Atty., John A. Warr, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HINES, Justice.

Rex Buford Savage appeals his convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm in the commission of felonies in connection with the aggravated assault and fatal shooting of Jon Matthew Gross and the aggravated assault of Becky Miller.Savage challenges the convictions on the bases that the trial court did not charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.Finding that the evidence did not authorize such instructions, we affirm.1

On the evening of September 22, 1999, Becky Miller called 911 to report that her boyfriend, Jon Gross, had been shot by Rex Savage.Miller and Savage had been in a sexual relationship prior to her involvement with Gross.On the evening of the shooting, Miller, Gross, Savage, and Savage's common-law wife, Deborah, all went out to dinner; everyone was amicable.After they returned to the Savages' home, where Miller was staying, Savage asked Miller if she would have a baby for him and his wife, who was unable to bear children; days earlier the Savages had broached the subject to Miller following a sexual encounter between Miller and Savage.Miller declined and left the home; Gross followed her and the two of them began talking.Deborah went outside and asked the two to leave.Moments later Savage exited the house and aimed a shotgun at both Miller and Gross.Miller and Gross tried to run in opposite directions; Savage fired.Gross was hit in the lower back by the shotgun blast and screamed, "I can't believe he shot me!"

Miller and Deborah ran to Gross to try to help him.Miller then went inside to call 911.Savage followed her inside and heard her tell the 911 operator that Gross was still alive.Savage searched for more shotgun shells, found ones with larger pellets, reloaded his shotgun, and went outside.Savage then shot Gross again from less than three feet away; this second and fatal blast entered Gross's upper back, hitting the ribs and the lungs, and entering the heart.The 911 operator heard the second gunshot, and Miller told the operator, "He shot him again."

The police had trouble locating the Savage residence, which was down a secluded dirt road, so the 911 operator called back.Savage answered the telephone and related to the operator that he had "overdosed" on Xanax but did not need an ambulance, that only one person was hurt, that the shotgun was on the living room floor, and that he"shouldn't done it."When the operator asked Savage what he had done, he stated, "I picked up my shotgun.I got a shotgun that sits beside the bed all the time and it's loaded.And so I made up my mind.I just picked it up and walked outside and shot `em.'"

1.The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Savage guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979).

2.Savage contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in not charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter.2He argues that inasmuch as he and Miller had recently engaged in a sexual relationship, discussed Miller having his child, and Miller rejected the proposal, a jury should have been given the opportunity to determine if the shooting was a crime of "passion" as contemplated by OCGA § 16-5-2.However, the argument is unavailing.

It is true, as Savage notes, that adulterous conduct may support a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter.Strickland v. State,257 Ga. 230, 231(2), 357 S.E.2d 85(1987).But this was not a situation of a defendant discovering a spouse's extra-marital affair, and acting as the result of any provocation from the discovery.

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when an individual kills "solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person."OCGA § 16-5-2(a)....[A]defendant is not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter charge where he has not demonstrated that he acted solely out of passion in response to a provocation that would have caused a reasonable person to act as he did.

Alexis v. State,273 Ga. 423, 424(2), 541 S.E.2d 636(2001).Here, there was no evidence of provocative conduct by the decedent, or for that matter, by Miller.Nor was there any evidence of a heated exchange or any visible anger on anyone's part, including Savage.And Savage's methodical actions in pursuing his fatal attack on Gross, and Savage's own description of the shooting belie any claim that Savage acted out of passion.In the absence of evidence of provocation and passion, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the offense of voluntary manslaughter.Id. at 425(2), 541 S.E.2d 636.

3.Savage also contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in not charging the jury on involuntary manslaughter.3He claims that the charge was warranted because the evidence supported the misdemeanor offenses of pointing a gun at another, OCGA § 16-11-102;4 reckless conduct, OCGA § 16-5-60;5 and discharging a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, OCGA § 16-11-134.6But that is not so.If the pointing of a firearm places the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury, then the felony of aggravated assault, rather than the misdemeanor of OCGA § 16-11-102, has occurred.Rhodes v. State,257 Ga. 368, 370(5), 359 S.E.2d 670(1987).Here, Gross and Miller's apprehension of immediate violent injury was apparent—they fled in fright.As to the misdemeanor crime of reckless conduct, the evidence was that Savage intentionally aimed his loaded shotgun...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Demons v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 2004
    ...out of passion in response to a provocation that would have caused a reasonable person to act as he did.' [Cit.]" Savage v. State, 274 Ga. 692, 694(2), 558 S.E.2d 701 (2002). The evidence adduced by the State does not suggest any provocation sufficient to reduce the killing to manslaughter,......
  • Dailey v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 29 Mayo 2012
    ...282 Ga. 557, 558(2), 651 S.E.2d 661 (2007) (citations omitted). 15. Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). 16. Savage v. State, 274 Ga. 692, 695(3), 558 S.E.2d 701 (2002) (citation omitted). 17. Id. 18. Stobbart v. State, 272 Ga. 608, 612(3), 533 S.E.2d 379 (2000) (citation and punctuation......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 2015
    ...injury, then the felony of aggravated assault, rather than the misdemeanor of OCGA § 16–11–102, has occurred.” Savage v. State,274 Ga. 692, 694(3), 558 S.E.2d 701 (2002).Although Thomas argues that the evidence demonstrated that he had “absolutely no intention of killing [McGee],” Thomas do......
  • Bates v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 2002
    ...to leave him alone. Thus, he did not act with the requisite mental state to support a charge on reckless conduct. Savage v. State, 274 Ga. 692, 695(3), 558 S.E.2d 701 (2002); Stobbart v. State, 272 Ga. 608, 611(3), 533 S.E.2d 379 (2000). See also Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368, 370(6), 359 S.......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Reconceptualizing criminal law defenses.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 151 No. 5, May 2003
    • 1 Mayo 2003
    ...invoked, the objective, reasonable person would have to have been provoked while in the defendant's predicament); Savage v. State, 558 S.E.2d 701, 703 (Ga. 2002) (deciding that a defendant may only receive a voluntary manslaughter charge when he has demonstrated that he acted out of passion......