Stamper v. State

Decision Date16 September 1975
Docket NumberNo. 29960,29960
Citation235 Ga. 165,219 S.E.2d 140
PartiesRobert Lansing STAMPER, Jr. v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Charles L. Weltner, Atlanta, for appellant.

Calvin Leipold, Edward H. Kellogg, Asst. Dist. Attys., Decatur, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., John W. Dunsmore, Jr., Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.

JORDAN, Justice.

Robert Lansing Stamper, Jr., was indicted for the murder of Greta Gay Block, also known as Greta Worrell, by striking her with a blunt instrument unknown to the grand jury. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, as amended.

The child was three years old. Her death occurred on August 21, 1974, at 5:00 p.m. at Grady Hospital in Atlanta.

On August 19, 1974, at about 10:00 p.m. an emergency unit from the DeKalb County Fire Department responded to a call and found a nude child (the deceased) lying on the foot of a bed with a man (the appellant) giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the child. They took the child to DeKalb General Hospital, and later moved her to Grady Hospital.

Officer Conger, with the DeKalb County Police Department, testified that: He responded to a call that a person had been injured and was not breathing. When he arrived at the address given he found three members of the Emergency Medical Service there. He saw them carry a young child from the house. He talked with the appellant who told him that: between 9:00 and 9:10 p.m. he turned on the television to watch a football game; the young girl had gone back to take a bath, and he did not think anything of it; he heard a thud and went back to check and found her lying down in the tub; he picked her up and water and saliva were coming out of her mouth; he put her on his shoulder and ran out of the house up the road to get help, then thought it would be quicker if he called, so he ran back to the house. The appellant appeared to be upset.

Dr. Gary Kaplan, a resident in neurology at Grady Hospital, testified that: He examined the child and found that she had retinal hemorrhages and was unconscious. His findings were consistent with increased innercranial pressure. He could not with certainty say that her symptoms did not indicate drowning, but drowning would be low on his list of suspicions. His feelings about drowning in the case were pertinent to the fact that the child was three years old, and would not likely drown in a bathtub unless she was previously unconscious. If she was conscious when she went into the tub, the chances of the child drowning were about 95% not possible.

Dr. Joseph Lawson Burton, who performed an autopsy on the child's body testified that: The autopsy revealed that the child had received three blows to the top back of the head, resulting in a hematoma, or clots, surrounding the brain, and had received a severe blow to the abdomen, resulting in hemorrhaging within the abdomen. The blows had been made by a blunt object, or an object that did not break the skin. They were consistent with being inflicted by a human fist. They were not consistent with the theory of accidental cause. It was his opinion that they could not have been caused by a fall in the bathtub. It was his opinion that the head and abdominal wounds were made between 24 and 72 hours prior to death. It was his opinion that the cause of death was subdural hematoma, or hemorrhaging within the head, as a result of the injuries to the head. There were no visible injuries to the head. When the blows were inflicted, the child could have become unconscious immediately and never regained consciousness, or she could have gone into a coma at a later date than when the injuries were inflicted, and it is possible that she could have become unconscious while in the bathtub.

Mr. and Mrs. Fred Pearson, and their daughter Donna, age 16, testified that the child stayed in their home on August 10 and 11, 1974. Mrs. Pearson was a business associate of the appellant. She testified that: The appellant had the child with him at the office on August 10. He told her that the child's mother had asked him to check on the child, and he found she had bruises on her and he took her home with him. The child expressed the wish to go home with her, and she took her. When the appellant came to get the child, she did not want to go with him, and asked him, 'Are you going to hurt me?' To which the appellant replied, 'Honey, I wouldn't hurt you in a million years,' and kissed her.

Mr. Fred Pearson testified that: The child was upset and had been mistreated. She had numerous bruises on her body. When the appellant came into the house, the child exhibited fear, and asked him if he was going to whip, or spank, or something like that.

Donna Pearson testified that: The child had numerous bruises on her body. She asked the child how she got the bruises, and the child said it was her daddy. She asked her who her daddy was, and the child said it was Bob Stamper (the appellant).

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wayne Burke testified that the child stayed in their home from the afternoon of August 11, until about 8:20 a.m. on August 19, 1974. Mr. Burke testified that: The child had bruises almost all over her body, and they had Dr. Quattlebaum examine her. The child appeared to be terrified when the appellant came to pick her up. She cried and held on to the witness. The child complained of having stomach pains once or twice while she was there.

Mrs. Burke, a business associate of the appellant, testified that: She first saw the child when she went to her office on Sunday afternoon, August 11, 1974. The child wanted to come home with her, and the appellant seemed pleased with the idea. The child was bruised from head to toe, and she had Dr. Quattlebaum come to her house Wednesday night to examine her. The child was nervous every time the appellant's name was mentioned. She did not want to go with him when he came after her. She asked the child on two occasions where she got the bruises. The first time, the child told her that everybody did it. The second time, she said that Bob Stamper (the appellant) did it. (The testimony in regard to these statements of the child was objected to on the ground that they were hearsay).

Dr. Quattlebaum, a pediatrician, testified that he saw the child during the evening of August 14, 1974. She had multiple bruises on her body. It was his opinion that she was an abused or battered child. The bruises appeared to have been from three or four days to a week old. His examination did not indicate that the child had received any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Legare v. State, 34444
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 22 June 1979
    ...to support a verdict, and it was not error for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal. Stamper v. State, 235 Ga. 165, 170, 219 S.E.2d 140 (1975); Cunningham v. State, 235 Ga. 126, 218 S.E.2d 854 20. In Enumeration 22, the appellant alleges: "The court below erred in sust......
  • Jones v. State, 63044
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 12 March 1982
    ...the statements. The jury was so instructed. Appellant enumerates as error the admission of this testimony. In Stamper v. The State, 235 Ga. 165, 168(1), 219 S.E.2d 140 (1975), a witness for the state was permitted to testify, over a hearsay objection, that, in response to the witness's inqu......
  • Blake v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 28 June 1977
    ...in death, life sentences have been imposed in some cases. See Wheeler v. State, 229 Ga. 617, 193 S.E.2d 814 (1972); Stamper v. State, 235 Ga. 165, 219 S.E.2d 140 (1974); Proveaux v. State, 233 Ga. 456, 211 S.E.2d 747 (1974); Davis v. State, 234 Ga. 730, 218 S.E.2d 20 (1974); Rampley v. Stat......
  • Anderson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 8 April 1981
    ...observe his demeanor while testifying in regard to that statement." Harrell, supra, at 185, 243 S.E.2d 890. Relying on Stamper v. State, 235 Ga. 165, 219 S.E.2d 140 (1975), appellant also argues that it was unnecessary to permit the officer to testify to the "entire conversation" he had wit......
  • 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