Sutton v. State, 31218
| Decision Date | 07 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31218,31218 |
| Citation | 228 S.E.2d 815,237 Ga. 418 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Willie Calvin SUTTON v. The STATE. |
Sanders, Mottola, Haugen, Wood & Goodson, Parnell Odom, Newnan, for appellant.
William F. Lee, Jr., Dist. Atty., Newnan, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Daryl A. Robinson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Willie Calvin Sutton was convicted by a jury on circumstantial evidence of the murders of his two apparently illegitimate infant daughters and for setting fire to his home to conceal the crimes. He received two consecutive life sentences for the murders and ten years for the arson to be served concurrently with the second life sentence. He appeals.
Appellant assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence; denial of a request that the jury visit the scene of the fire; overruling of an objection to testimony concerning incriminating admissions made by defendant following the arson; and failure to charge.
After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
1. The record shows appellant lived in a residence which was consumed by fire soon after appellant left for work. Firemen later discovered the bodies of appellant's two infant daughters in one of the bedrooms. Expert testimony showed the fire to have been deliberately set; the children died of suffocation prior to the fire; and appellant was the last person to leave the house immediately prior to the discovery of the fire.
Further evidence showed the appellant returned to the scene of the fire shortly after the firemen arrived; appeared to be disinterested in the fate of his daughters; and lied to an investigating officer as to his reason for returning to the house. The record showed appellant wanted to return to live with his estranged wife and she, under oath, at first denied, then, under cross-examination by the prosecutor, affirmed she had told appellant the week before the murders that she would not consent to his being with her again as long as 'that woman and those children . . . those children are out there.' Appellant was shown to have had the means at his disposal to carry out the fire, and he made incriminating statements in the presence of a friend about one week following the arson.
We find the evidence introduced during the trial was sufficient to convict appellant on circumstantial evidence and did not demand a verdict of acquittal. The trial judge properly overruled the motion for directed verdict at the end of the State's case. Code Ann. § 27-1802(a); Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 376, 219 S.E.2d 743 (1975); Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604, 198 S.E.2d 311 (1973).
2. Appellant contends the court erred in overruling his objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brecheen v. State
...the statements. This is a factor for the jury to decide. People v. Duncan, 72 Cal.App.2d 247, 164 P.2d 313 (1945); Sutton v. State, 237 Ga. 418, 228 S.E.2d 815 (1976). The jury was properly instructed that they should decide the weight to be given to his statements if they found the stateme......
-
Flynt v. State
...where sexually explicit materials were available. A jury view is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Sutton v. State, 237 Ga. 418, 228 S.E.2d 815 (1976). While the question of a jury view in the context of an obscenity trial apparently has not arisen in this state, other jurisdict......
-
Gissendaner v. State
...were unsafe, did not abuse its discretion in denying Gissendaner's motion to have the jury view the crime scene. Sutton v. State, 237 Ga. 418, 419(3), 228 S.E.2d 815 (1976). Gissendaner was allowed to introduce numerous photographs of the crime scene that she was able to use in support of h......
-
People v. Kidd
...whether the declarant was asleep or awake, the statements are admissible and the jury should decide the issue. See Sutton v. State (1976), 237 Ga. 418, 228 S.E.2d 815 (evidence showed defendant was in drunken stupor or asleep and was conflicting as to whether defendant was conscious or unco......