Stevens v. State

Decision Date05 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 33808,33808
PartiesSTEVENS v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Gibbs, Leaphart & Smith, Robert B. Smith, Jesup, for appellant.

Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., John B. Johnson, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., William B. Hill, Jr., Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

This is Stevens' appeal from his death sentence imposed January 24, 1978, in Wayne County Superior Court, for the murder of Roger E. Honeycutt, a taxi driver.

The state's evidence, including Stevens' confession, showed that on the night of September 4, 1977, Stevens was drinking beer in the enlisted men's club with Christopher A. Burger, a friend and fellow serviceman at Fort Stewart. The two ran out of money and decided to rob a cabdriver. They called a Shuman Company cab, but decided not to use it upon finding that the driver was accompanied by a friend. They then received a call from James Botsford, their squad leader, who asked to be picked up at the Savannah airport. Stevens and Burger took a knife sharpener and a 14-inch butcher knife from the dining facility, and called a D & M cab. When the driver, Honeycutt, arrived alone, Stevens and Burger entered the cab and later, at an agreed signal, they drew the two weapons forcing the driver to the curb. He was able to give them less than $20. Stevens then ordered him to remove all of his clothes, which Stevens then rifled, throwing them out of the cab window as Burger drove the three. Honeycutt, now naked, was pleading for his life, saying he would do anything. Stevens forced him to commit an act of oral sodomy, then an act of anal sodomy, and then bound him with the microphone cord from the cab's CB radio and placed him in the trunk of the cab. Stevens and Burger then drove to the airport to pick up Botsford, to whom they admitted that the cab was stolen and the driver had been robbed, sodomized and placed in the trunk. Stevens showed Botsford the weapons. From time to time Stevens and Burger would shout to the victim "Are you still back there?" and Botsford heard the reply from the trunk, "Yes, sir."

Botsford's testimony at trial was that Stevens said he thought they should kill Honeycutt, but Burger disagreed, and Botsford tried to talk him out of it and thought he had succeeded. When they arrived back at Fort Stewart to deposit Botsford, Stevens and Burger seemed to him to have agreed to let the driver go and leave the cab beside the road.

After dropping Botsford off, Stevens and Burger drove to Jack's Mini Mart in Jesup for milk and sandwiches. Later, when a police car appeared to be following them, they decided they had to get out of the car, so Burger drove to a pond in a wooded area. They wiped their fingerprints off the car, and Stevens removed the CB radio. This radio was later recovered by police from the automobile of Burger's mother-in-law. Burger drove the automobile into the pond, leaping free before it went in. The two looked back and saw the automobile sinking. The victim, bound in the trunk, drowned. Burger and Stevens returned to Fort Stewart, paying another taxi an $11 fare for the return trip.

The next day the two inquired of Botsford whether he had said anything to authorities, and he said not. They told him they had freed the driver. A few days later, amid reports of the missing driver, Botsford went to authorities and gave a statement of what he knew.

Burger confessed. Stevens, who was aware of Burger's confession, confessed. In his handwritten confession he stated that he had advised against killing the driver and had not known Burger was planning to drive the automobile into the pond.

The car was pulled from the pond, and the victim was found in the trunk. Numerous pieces of Honeycutt's clothes were recovered from the route Stevens and Burger had driven. The two weapons were found in the cab. Honeycutt's identification was found above the sun visor of the cab, and the cab was identified by its owner as the one driven by Honeycutt.

Stevens and Burger were tried separately for murder, and each was convicted and sentenced to death. See Burger v. State, 242 Ga. 28, 247 S.E.2d 834 (1978). Stevens' confession was introduced against him, as was Botsford's testimony. Stevens urges numerous errors in this appeal.

1. In a two-pronged argument, Stevens urges that the trial court erred in not requiring the state to produce the written statement of James Botsford in response to a defense motion. The statement was sought under the Brady rationale, and also under a notice to produce pursuant to Code Ann. § 38-801(g). The state did furnish Stevens with a summary of Botsford's statements, and the trial court made an in camera inspection of the prosecutor's files, finding nothing exculpatory in the requested statement by Botsford. Botsford's statement was not used at trial.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972), ruled that due process was violated where the prosecution suppressed requested evidence which was favorable to the accused and material either to guilt or punishment. Our cases require that to prevail on such a point, an appellant must indicate the materiality and the favorable nature of the evidence sought. Pryor v. State, 238 Ga. 698, 706, 234 S.E.2d 918 (1977); McGuire v. State, 238 Ga. 247, 248, 232 S.E.2d 243 (1977); Wisdom v. State, 234 Ga. 650, 652, 217 S.E.2d 244 (1975); Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 396, 207 S.E.2d 30 (1974). In Rini v. State, 235 Ga. 60, 218 S.E.2d 811 (1975), urged by Stevens, appellant carried this burden by showing that the two witnesses were key witnesses on whom the state's entire case depended, and by making a preliminary showing that discovery of their statements would show a sequence of events different from their testimony, thus undercutting their credibility.

Stevens has completely failed to carry this burden, because he has asserted no prejudice whatever from the fact that he did not have Botsford's statement prior to trial. He does not even now contend that there was anything material and exculpatory to himself in that statement. He subjected Botsford to full cross-examination on the stand. Under the Brady rationale, Stevens has failed to show error.

Nor was he entitled to the statement under Code Ann. § 38-801(g), which allows a party to compel production of books, writings or other documents in the possession of another party. Stevens argues correctly that Brown v. State, 238 Ga. 98, 231 S.E.2d 65 (1976), held this section applicable to criminal trials. However, Brown does not establish the general availability under Code § 38-801(g) of witnesses' statements, and there has been no such decision by either of Georgia's appellate courts. Indeed, such a decision would be at odds with the general proposition that " '(t)here is no Georgia statute nor rule of practice which requires the district attorney to open his files to the attorney for the accused, nor is the accused entitled as a matter of right to receive copies of police reports and investigation reports made in the course of preparing the case against the client.' " Nations v. State, 234 Ga. 709, 217 S.E.2d 287 (1975).

The Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled that the statements of witnesses in the prosecutor's files (nothing more appearing) may not be reached by Code Ann. § 38-801(g). Barker v. State, 144 Ga.App. 339, 241 S.E.2d 11 (1977).

Stevens has shown no error in the state's failure to produce the statement of Botsford.

2. Enumeration 2, complaining of lack of time to investigate three rebuttal witnesses who might have been called by the state, is moot because those witnesses did not testify. In any event, the state had previously promised Stevens that he would be given time to interview them if the state did eventually decide to use them. See also Burger v. State, supra.

3. Stevens complains in Enumeration 3 that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion based on the fact that the Steven jury were in the jury room when the Burger jury, in the courtroom, fixed Burger's punishment at death; and Stevens jury might have heard the resulting pronouncement of sentence because of the closeness of the jury room to the jury box. The trial judge stated on the record that in publishing the Burger verdict and pronouncing sentence he had lowered his voice "by at least one-half or more." In an effort to establish whether the Stevens jury heard the verdict of the Burger jury, the trial court summoned them all back to the jury box and specifically asked "Could any of you hear what went on in here." The transcript continues as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Blake v. Zant, CV480-251
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • April 29, 1981
    ...remedies is not an issue in this case. 2 Mr. Stevens was tried separately, convicted, and also sentenced to death. See Stevens v. State, 242 Ga. 34, 247 S.E.2d 838 (1978). 3 Petitioner's motion to permit amendment is thus granted. Arguments raised thereby, which primarily concern Miranda wa......
  • Godfrey v. State, 34256
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • March 27, 1979
    ...the ceiling of the trailer. We have repeatedly held that photographs of this sort are generally admissible. E. g., Stevens v. State, 242 Ga. 34, 38, 247 S.E.2d 838 (1978); Burger v. State, 242 Ga. 28, 31, 247 S.E.2d 834 (1978); White v. State, 242 Ga. 21, 22, 247 S.E.2d 759 (1978); Lamb v. ......
  • Gilreath v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 30, 1981
    ...v. State, 243 Ga. 312(2), 253 S.E.2d 736, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 263, 62 L.Ed.2d 181 (1979), quoting Stevens v. State, 242 Ga. 34(1), 247 S.E.2d 838 (1978). And 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500 is neither constitutionally required nor applicable to state trials. United States v. Augenblick......
  • Butts v. Warden
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • October 16, 2015
    ...262 Ga. 888, 891 n.1, 427 S.E.2d 490, 492 n.1 (1993) (citing Godfrey v. State, 243 Ga. 302, 253 S.E.2d 710 (1979); Stevens v. State, 242 Ga. 34, 247 S.E.2d 838 (1978); and Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10, 243 S.E.2d 59 (1978)). "Doubtless, photographs of the victim are prejudicial to the accused,......
  • 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