Selman v. State, S96A1152

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: HINES; All the Justices concur, except SEARS
• Citation: 267 Ga. 198,475 S.E.2d 892
• Parties: SELMAN v. The STATE.
• Docket Number: No. S96A1152,S96A1152
• Decision Date: 23 September 1996

Page 892

475 S.E.2d 892 267 Ga. 198 SELMAN
v.
The STATE. No. S96A1152. Supreme Court of Georgia. Sept. 23, 1996.
Reconsideration Denied Oct. 17, 1996.

Page 893

[267 Ga. 202] Robert William Lenzer, Lenzer & Lenzer, Norcross, Gregory E. Lundy, Buford, Thomas Patrick Lenzer, Lenzer & Lenzer, Norcross, for Stanley Selman.

Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Tracy R. Aronovitz, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., State Law Department, Atlanta, for the State.

[267 Ga. 198] HINES, Justice.

Stanley Selman appeals his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of murder in connection with the fatal shooting of James Williams. ¹ We affirm.

[267 Ga. 199] The evidence, viewed in favor of the verdict, revealed that on the afternoon of April 24, 1994, Selman went to the home of his longtime friend, Ms. Kilgore. Kilgore had been dating Williams for about two years, and Williams often stayed at Kilgore's house. Selman and Williams had gotten along with each other but prior to April 24th, Selman began to act hostilely toward Williams. He also began behaving in an unusual manner toward Kilgore. The week before, Selman called Kilgore and told her that he loved her. Kilgore arrived at work on April 22 to find Selman and police and security guards waiting for her in the parking lot. Selman embraced

Page 894

Kilgore and said that he thought she might be hurt. After the police left, Kilgore saw Selman unloading a rifle by his truck. Selman commented to Kilgore that she would be moving from her residence and that he would marry her tomorrow if needed. That evening while Williams was at work, Selman came to Kilgore's home and told her that he had dreamed that she was going to be killed and that Williams was bad and a "wife beater." Selman left after asking Kilgore if she could live without Williams.

When Selman arrived at Kilgore's home on April 24th, he was carrying his handgun in its case and a Bible. While Kilgore was answering a telephone call, Selman called Williams to the back of the house. Williams had been doing laundry and was carrying a jacket on a clothes hanger as he went to find Selman. Selman shot Williams in the buttocks from approximately three feet behind. As Williams spun around facing Selman, Selman shot him two more times. One bullet grazed Williams' forearm and then penetrated his heart. The other round passed through Williams' hand to his shoulder. As Williams lay on the floor, Selman fired a final close range shot to Williams' head.

Selman stated to the first officer arriving on the scene, "I did it. I shot him. Then I called you." As another officer attempted to read Selman his Miranda ² rights, Selman said, "You don't have to read me my rights. I did it. I'll take what's coming to me." Selman explained to the police that he had planned to kill Williams on the prior Thursday but had not because Kilgore's children were home. Selman appeared to be calm and apologetic. Later, Selman gave police a lengthy videotaped statement in which he repeatedly admitted murdering Williams.

1. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Selman did not act with provocation or justification in shooting Williams and that he was guilty of [267 Ga. 200] malice murder and possession of a firearm during its commission. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2. The contention that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence Selman's inculpatory statements to officers at the scene because they were made prior to his being given Miranda warnings fails. The statements did not result from an in-custody interrogation, as they must in order to invoke Miranda. Thomas v. State, 243 Ga. 217, 218(1), 253 S.E.2d 190 (1979).

3. Selman was given funds for an independent psychological evaluation and retained psychologist Stark. At trial, the State questioned the admissibility of Stark's testimony because Selman was not contesting his competency to stand trial nor seeking an insanity defense or a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. Selman's counsel stated the defenses were justification and a lack of malice or intent. He argued that the evidence of Selman's paranoia and fear of the victim was relevant to the issue of malice or intent and relevant because the case was like a battered woman syndrome case. The court granted the State's request for a proffer of testimony, and following the proffer, ruled the testimony inadmissible. In three separate enumerations of error, Selman challenges the exclusion of Stark's testimony, but the challenge fails.

It was not error to refuse the testimony on the basis that it was admissible...