Slocum v. State
| Decision Date | 02 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27988,27988 |
| Citation | 199 S.E.2d 202,230 Ga. 762 |
| Parties | Harry SLOCUM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Aultman, Hulbert, Cowart & Daniel, Robert L. Hartley, Jr., Warner Robins, for appellant.
R. Joneal Lee, Dist. Atty., Perry, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Daniel I. MacIntyre, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Harry Slocum and Paulette Bryden were jointly indicted for murder and armed robbery committed as a part of the same continuing transaction. Harry Slocum was tried and convicted on each indictment and received separate life sentences. He appeals to this court. Held:
1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for separate trials on the murder and the armed robbery indictments. In Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76, 179 S.E.2d 76 this court construed Code Ann. § 26-506(b), (c) of the 1968 Criminal Code (Ga.L.1968, p. 1249 et seq.). In that case it was said: This case was followed in Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730(3), 182 S.E.2d 779.
It follows that there is no merit in this contention of the appellant.
2. The co-indictee testified that she met the appellant in 1971 and had dated him for a couple of months in New York before he returned to Georgia; that in July, 1972, she met the appellant in Pennsylvania and they returned to Warner Robins, Georgia, and lived together in his brother's house; that on the night of the murder and robbery, they were in a bar when a man (later identified as the victim) ran his car into a ditch and someone asked the appellant to help him get the car out of the ditch; that the appellant left the bar and talked with the victim for 5 or 10 minutes after the car was removed from the ditch; that the appellant called the co-indictee outside and said that they would take the victim home; that the appellant drove his own car; that the victim had been drinking and the co-indictee asked him if he wanted her to drive for him; that he told her that he did and that he lived in Hawkinsville; that she was driving the victim's car and following the appellant; that after driving a short distance, the appellant stopped his car; that she thought he had a flat tire and stopped behind him; that the appellant told her to drive the victim's car up to a gate; that the appellant was already out of his car; that she and the victim got out of the car in which they were riding and all of them started walking up the road; that she stopped to urinate; that the appellant and the victim continued up the road; that when she caught up with them, the victim was on the ground and the appellant was standing over him asking for his money; that the victim told him he did not have any money; that the appellant told him that he was going to kill him and began hitting him with a four-way tire tool; that she went up to him, grabbed him, screamed and told him to stop; that she then backed up; that the appellant hit the victim again; that she saw blood; that she saw the appellant strike him several times; that she ran back to the appellant's car and got in; that the appellant came back, jumped in the car with her and drove away; that they stopped the car by some water and the appellant threw the victim's car keys, watch, and the tire tool into the water; that she later showed the police officers where they were thrown; that when they returned to the house where they were living, the appellant realized that his wallet was missing and returned to the scene of the crime to look for it; that the appellant told her that he could not find his wallet at the scene but that the victim was still alive; that he looked through the victim's wallet at the house and then burned it in a pan by putting gasoline on it; that she later took the burned contents of the pan outside and emptied it under the house; that the appellant had on shoes with a horseshoe cleat on the heel; that he removed the cleat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jarrell v. State
...judge and that his discretion had not been abused in that case. See also Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730(3), 182 S.E.2d 799; Slocum v. State, 230 Ga. 762, 199 S.E.2d 202, and Mathis v. State, 231 Ga. 401, 402, 202 S.E.2d It is noted that the General Assembly used the words 'interests of justice'......
-
Hill v. State
...corroboration of the accomplice to support the verdict. Birt v. State, 236 Ga. 815, 225 S.E.2d 248 (1976). See also Slocum v. State, 230 Ga. 762, 199 S.E.2d 202 (1973). As we view the evidence, the testimony of a disinterested witness placing the accused with the testifying co-defendant pri......
-
Jones v. State
...157, 34 S.E. 369; Brown v. State, 232 Ga. 838, 840, 209 S.E.2d 180; Hargrove v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 274, 54 S.E. 164; Slocum v. State, 230 Ga. 762(3), 199 S.E.2d 202; Birt v. State, 236 Ga. 815, 816, 225 S.E.2d In reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the proper standard ......
-
Berry v. State
...on slight evidence of corroboration connecting a defendant with the crime, the verdict is legally sufficient. See Slocum v. State, 230 Ga. 762(3), 199 S.E.2d 202 (1973)." Carter v. State, 237 Ga. 617, 618, 229 S.E.2d 411 (1976). Contrary to appellant's assertions, "[t]he necessary corrobora......