Smith v. State, 44682

Decision Date09 September 1987
Docket NumberNo. 44682,44682
Citation359 S.E.2d 662,257 Ga. 381
PartiesSMITH v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Jerry Boykin, Atlanta, for Carey Smith, Jr.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Atlanta, Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Paula K. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BELL, Justice.

Appellant, Carey Smith, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. 1 He appeals, and we affirm.

Smith and the victim were intoxicated and had been fighting in the backyard of the house where Smith lived with six other people. During the fight Smith suffered a cut on his head. He also asked bystanders if they wanted to see someone die. Following the fight, the men entered the front of the house. Smith sat in the kitchen while the victim went into the breakfast room. All but one of the other people present went to the back of the house to look for medicine to treat the cut on Smith's head, leaving Smith and the victim in the front of the house with John Banks. When the other people returned, Smith was in the breakfast room and Kevin Dean, the owner of the house, discovered that the victim had been fatally stabbed.

The appellant contends that the state presented only circumstantial evidence, and that it failed to meet the burden of excluding every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-6. Appellant contends that there is a reasonable hypothesis that Banks committed the murder. We disagree.

There is no evidence that there was an altercation between Banks and the victim. Moreover, the evidence shows that Smith had fought with the victim immediately before the stabbing, and had asked bystanders to the fight if they wanted to see someone die. Circumstantial evidence must exclude only reasonable hypotheses; it need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. White v. State, 253 Ga. 106(1), 317 S.E.2d 196 (1984); Robinson v. State, 168 Ga.App. 569(1), 309 S.E.2d 845 (1983). Viewing the evidence of the instant case in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the jury could have found that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt, OCGA § 2-4-6; Nicholson v. State, 249 Ga. 775(1), 294 S.E.2d 485 (1982), and that the jury could have found Smith guilty of the crime of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • Dearmore v. State, A90A1414
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 1990
    ...exclude reasonable hypotheses; it need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382, 359 S.E.2d 662. Viewing the evidence of this case in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the jury rationally could hav......
  • Nichols v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 26, 1993
    ...that the jury rationally could have found that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382, 359 S.E.2d 662. 8. The trial court did not err in admitting the DNA evidence. Compare Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436, su......
  • Mckibbins v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 21, 2013
    ...of the accused.” Former OCGA § 24–4–6.10 But circumstantial evidence need not exclude an unreasonable hypothesis, Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382, 359 S.E.2d 662 (1987), and as we have explained before, whether a hypothesis is a reasonable one is usually a matter for the jury. Blevins v. S......
  • Hayes v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 2001
    ...other reasonable hypothesis but the defendant's guilt, the evidence need not exclude every inference or hypothesis. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382, 359 S.E.2d 662 (1987). After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's determination, we conclude that the jury ration......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT