Tarvestad v. State
Citation | 261 Ga. 605,409 S.E.2d 513 |
Decision Date | 18 October 1991 |
Docket Number | No. S91G0872,S91G0872 |
Parties | TARVESTAD v. The STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Billy L. Spruell, Brian M. Dubuc, Spruell & Dubuc, P.C., Atlanta, for Tarvestad.
Thomas C. Lawler, III, Dist. Atty., Lawrenceville, Allyson Fritz, Debra K. Turner, Asst. Dist. Attys., Lawrenceville, for the State.
Ronald Eugene Tarvestad was convicted of being a habitual violator under OCGA § 40-5-58. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Tarvestad v. State, 198 Ga.App. 863, 403 S.E.2d 446 (1991). We granted a writ of certiorari to consider whether the trial judge should have given a jury instruction on justification based on OCGA § 16-3-20(6). 1 Because we find that Tarvestad presented some evidence of his sole defense and the jury charge as a whole did not reflect his theory of the case, we reverse the Court of Appeals' affirmance of his conviction.
Tarvestad was driving his pregnant wife to the doctor's office on June 2, 1989 when they saw a police road check. Police officers watched as a truck stopped 120 to 130 feet away and Tarvestad exchanged places with his wife so that she was driving when officers stopped the truck. Tarvestad admitted at trial that he had been driving the truck without a driver's license, but asserted that his driving was justified. He testified that the doctor had told his wife, who was eight-and-a-half months pregnant and having early labor pains, to come to the doctor's office and that Mrs. Tarvestad could not operate the truck. The trial court declined to give the orally requested charge on justification, ruling that a review of all of the evidence showed that Tarvestad had options other than driving the truck.
The trial court must charge the jury on the defendant's sole defense, even without a written request, if there is some evidence to support the charge. Hayes v. State, 261 Ga. 439, 443-44, 405 S.E.2d 660, 665 (1991); Pippins v. State, 224 Ga. 462, 465, 162 S.E.2d 338 (1968). In this case, Tarvestad met that standard when he testified that he drove without a license because his wife was experiencing labor pains, the doctor said he needed to see her, and she could not drive herself to the doctor's office. A jury could have found that his decision to seek medical help for his wife and their soon-to-be-born child stands on "the same footing of reason and justice" as a government employee's reasonable fulfillment of his duties, a parent's reasonable discipline of a child, and a person's reasonable conduct in performing a citizen's arrest. See OCGA § 16-3-20(2), (3), and (4). Having presented some evidence on his sole defense, he was entitled to the jury instruction that he orally requested.
A trial court, however, need not specifically charge on an affirmative defense when the entire charge fairly presents the issues, including the defendant's theory, to the jury. Johnson v. State, 253 Ga. 37, 315 S.E.2d 871 (1984); Booker v. State, 247 Ga. 74, 274 S.E.2d 334 (1981). The trial court in this case gave charges on credibility, direct and circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt weighing the evidence, the definition of a crime, and inferences. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glenn v. State
...invasion of one's liberty with proportionate force causing damage to property does stand on such footing. See Tarvestad v. State , 261 Ga. 605, 606, 409 S.E.2d 513 (1991) (A jury could have found that the defendant's decision to drive without a license in order to seek medical help for his ......
-
Virgilio v. State
...charge. * * * Having presented some evidence on his sole defense, he was entitled to the jury instruction * * *. Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605, 409 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1991). Here, as in the quoted Georgia case, the instructions "as a whole failed to fairly present [Virgilio's mere presence]......
-
Glenn v. State
...invasion of one's liberty with proportionate force causing damage to property does stand on such footing. See Tarvestad v. State , 261 Ga. 605, 606, 409 S.E.2d 513 (1991) (A jury could have found that the defendant's decision to drive without a license in order to seek medical help for his ......
-
Rogers v. State
...the jury on a defendant's sole defense, even without a written request, if the circumstances support the charge. Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605, 606, 409 S.E.2d 513 [(1991)]." Green v. State, 240 Ga.App. 774, 779, 525 S.E.2d 154 (1999) (McMurray, P.J., dissenting). Assuming, without decidi......
-
Vigilant or Vigilante? Procedure and Rationale for Immunity in Defense of Habitation and Defense of Property Under the Official Code of Georgia Annotated Sections 16-3-23, -24, -24.1, and -24.2 - Robert Christian Rutledge
...600 S.E.2d at 609. 57. Id.; O.C.G.A. Sec. 16-3-24.2. 58. See Millen, 267 Ga. App. at 883-84, 600 S.E.2d at 609. Cf. Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605, 606, 409 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1991) (holding that convicted felon is entitled to jury instruction of justification when he or she is charged wi......