Stewart v. State, 32152
| Decision Date | 08 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32152,32152 |
| Parties | Carl Morris STEWART v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John N. Crudup, R. Thomas Jarrard, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Roland H. Stroberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Daryl A. Robinson, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for armed robbery; death for kidnapping with bodily injury, and to life for aggravated sodomy. He appeals.
1. Under Coker v. Georgia, --- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), we set aside the sentences of death for armed robbery and kidnapping since death to the victims did not result. 1 See Collins v. State, 239 Ga. 45, 235 S.E.2d 523 (1977).
2. Appellant argues no commitment hearing was held on the charge of aggravated sodomy even though demand prior to indictment was made. There is nothing in this record to show that such demand was made, and following the return of the indictment and conviction, it was too late. State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 55, 222 S.E.2d 343 (1976).
3. It is not an abuse of discretion in the interest of justice for the judge to refuse a motion for severance of the trial of multiple charges where the crimes alleged were part of a continuous transaction conducted over a relatively short time, and ". . . from the nature of the entire transaction, it would be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also permitting evidence of the other . . ." Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 76, 179 S.E.2d 76 (1970). See Code Ann. § 26-506 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1267). There is no merit in enumeration 2.
4. In his third and fourth enumerations, appellant argues the court committed error when it overruled his challenges for cause against certain jurors during voir dire and granted the state's challenges for cause. A careful reading of the voir dire transcript shows appellant challenged for cause those jurors who had stated they were "aware of" pre-trial publicity, basing the challenge upon his statement "they were influenced by such publicity." However, each of these jurors also plainly stated in this transcript he or she had no fixed opinion on the case and could render an impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented. There was no error. See Wilkes v. State, 238 Ga. 57, 58-59(2), 230 S.E.2d 867 (1976); Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84, 91, 226 S.E.2d 911 (1976); Krist v. Caldwell, 230 Ga. 536, 537, 198 S.E.2d 161 (1973) and cases cited. There is no error.
Likewise, there is no error in the granting of the state's challenges for cause of other jurors. Each of these jurors indicated they would not impose a death sentence regardless of the evidence produced at trial, or stated they would not impose the death penalty unless another life had been taken. These responses permit exclusion of the jurors under the holdings in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 522, n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
5. It was permissible to receive testimony regarding the theft of the blue 1973 automobile and the testimony of a victim whom appellant had assaulted prior to the robbery and kidnap of another victim. This testimony was permitted to show prior scheme, motive, intent and acts which were part of a system of mutually dependent crimes. See Thurmond v. State, 220 Ga. 277, 278-79, 138 S.E.2d 372 (1964); Barrow v. State, 235 Ga. 635, 221 S.E.2d 416 (1975). There is no merit in enumerations five and six.
6. Appellant claims in enumeration seven that it was error to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. The transcript shows appellant's counsel requested a charge on circumstantial evidence following the charge-in-chief; made no objection following re-charge and made no effort to invoke some ruling or instruction from the court respecting it. A party cannot induce an alleged error or ". . . ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later." Ellard v. State, 233 Ga. 640, 642(5), 212 S.E.2d 816, 818 (1975); Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435, 438(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bright v. State
...be almost impossible to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without permitting evidence of the other. Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 589, 238 S.E.2d 540 (1977); Dingler v. State, 233 Ga. 462, 463, 211 S.E.2d 752 (1975). It is undisputed that Bright used crack cocaine before and ......
-
Godfrey v. State
...killings is inherently prejudicial." This contention is totally without merit. Code Ann. § 26-506(b) and (c); Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 589, 238 S.E.2d 540 (1977); Jarrell v. State, 234 Ga. 410, 413, 216 S.E.2d 258 (1975); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68, 179 S.E.2d 76 (1970). Neither w......
-
Woolfolk v. State
...acts" with the charges involving Young. Compare Miller v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 743-744(3), 512 S.E.2d 272; Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 589(3), 238 S.E.2d 540 (1977) (proper to join offenses where crimes alleged were part of continuous transaction conducted over relatively short time ......
-
Fair v. State
...a continuous transaction and all were mutually dependent crimes. Collins v. State, 239 Ga. 45, 235 S.E.2d 523 (1977); Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 238 S.E.2d 540 (1977). Had the appellant pled not guilty and elected to go to trial on guilt-innocence, the evidence complained of would have ......