Tatum v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38543,38543 |
| Citation | 291 S.E.2d 701,249 Ga. 422 |
| Parties | TATUM v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael E. Neidenbach, Lawson, Brown & Hartness, Gainesville, for Charlie Tatum.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for the State.
Tatum and co-defendant, Edwards, were tried jointly for the murder of Bill Roberts. Tatum was found guilty of murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment. 1 Tatum alleges on appeal that the admission into evidence of an out of court statement given to the police by Edwards violated Tatum's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment, citing Bruton v. U. S., 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Tatum also complains of the admission into evidence of certain photographs of the deceased alleged to be repetitious, prejudicial and of no probative value. Finally, Tatum contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for the crime of murder, citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The body of the victim was found floating in Lake Lanier on the morning of June 8, 1981. The autopsy report established multiple contusions and abrasions about the head and body, and gave the cause of death as drowning. Tied around the neck of the victim was a red shirt which was later shown to have been worn by Edwards on the previous day.
Both defendants made out of court statements to police officers and these statements were admitted at trial. Edwards' statement was offered only against Edwards, and the jury was instructed that "... a statement made by a defendant may be used only against the defendant who gave the statement and can not be considered as evidence of a co-defendant's guilt." Neither defendant took the stand at trial.
Tatum's statement to the police indicated the following: Early in the evening of June 7 Tatum picked up the victim in Tatum's car. He and the victim drove around in search of a bootlegger, eventually obtained liquor, and then continued to drive around, drinking the liquor. On at least one occasion they parked the car for a period of time. At about midnight they drove to the house of Edwards and picked him up. The threesome then drove the car to a spot near the shore of Lake Lanier, known as Peck's Bridge, and parked. Tatum also stated that during the fracas Edwards pulled his shirt off and tied it around the victim's head.
Edwards' statement indicated that Tatum and the victim picked him up at his home between 11:30 P.M. and midnight and all three drove to a park. The victim called Tatum a faggot and Tatum vigorously denied the charge. Tatum grabbed the victim's head and thrust it into his lap, daring the victim, in extremely vulgar terms, to perform a homosexual act. Tatum then tried to get the victim out of the car, threatening to beat him up, but the victim refused. Tatum slammed the car door on the victim's legs, returned to the driver's seat, and drove to Peck's Bridge. While Edwards remained in the car Tatum and the victim walked to a picnic table. Asked how the victim got down to the lake, Edwards replied, "I reckon Charlie drug him down there." Tatum returned to the car alone and he and Edwards left.
(1) The admission of Edwards' statement at trial was not contrary to the hearsay rule, as the jury was instructed that the statement was to be considered only in the determination of Edwards' guilt or innocence. A crucial assumption underlying the system of trial by jury is that the jury will follow the instructions of the trial judge. Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 2139, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979). The holding in Bruton v. U. S., 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), as characterized by Parker, is an exception to this general rule. See Parker, supra, at p. 75, n. 7, 99 S.Ct. at 2140 n. 7. In Bruton, the out of court statement of a codefendant was admitted at a joint trial in a case where the defendant maintained his innocence, and neither defendant took the stand. Although, as in the present case, the jury was properly instructed as to the use of the statement, the Court held that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanifa v. State
...See, e.g., Freeman, supra; 256 Ga. 593, 351 S.E.2d 625; Allen v. State, 255 Ga. 513, 516, 340 S.E.2d 187 (1986); Tatum v. State, 249 Ga. 422, 291 S.E.2d 701 (1982); Fortner v. State, 248 Ga. 107(1), 281 S.E.2d 533 (1981); Knowles v. State, 246 Ga. 378(4), 271 S.E.2d 615 (1980); Casper v. St......
-
Yeargin v. State, s. 64873
...89(2), 274 S.E.2d 104 (1980). See generally Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979); Tatum v. State, 249 Ga. 422, 291 S.E.2d 701 (1982); Fortner v. State, 248 Ga. 107(1), 281 S.E.2d 533 (1981); Casper v. State, 244 Ga. 689(1), 261 S.E.2d 629 Case No. 64873 5. W......
-
Pickren v. State
...for which he is on trial is "`probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him,'" (Tatum v. State, 249 Ga. 422(1), 291 S.E.2d 701 (1982)), we cannot say the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion in 7. Appellant contends the trial court erred when ......
-
Sawyer v. State
...may render harmless any error in admitting the unredacted incriminating statement of a non-testifying co-defendant. Tatum v. State, 249 Ga. 422, 423(1), 424, 291 S.E.2d 701. This is because " 'the incriminating statements of a co-defendant will seldom, if ever, be of the "devastating" chara......
-
A Better Orientation for Jury Instructions - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...a jury will be disinclined to follow limiting instructions. Moss v. State, 275 Ga. 96, 98, 561 S.E.2d 382, 386 (2002). 18. Tatum v. State, 249 Ga. 422, 424, 291 S.E.2d 701, 703 (1982), disapproved on other grounds by Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 505 S.E.2d 731 (1998). 19. Tiersma, supra no......