Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46484,46484 |
| Citation | 378 S.E.2d 686,259 Ga. 202 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William A. Dowell, Duffy & Feemster, P.C., Savannah, for Reina Renee Thomas.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., Savannah, Gregory R. Jacobs, Barry l. Mortge, Asst. Dist. Attys., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Leonora Grant, for the State.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the murder of seventeen year old Yvette Weaver, concealing a death, obstruction of an officer, and hindering the apprehension of a criminal. She was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder plus additional years for the other charges. 1 The evidence at trial showed that appellant and her co-defendant Janet Weaver, whose trial was severed from that of appellant, killed the victim and dragged her body into a lane near the house where they lived. The autopsy on the body indicated that Yvette had been stabbed numerous times and possibly either strangled or suffocated, or both.
1. In her first enumeration of error appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. We find the evidence sufficient under the test set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Appellant's second enumeration of error concerns the trial court's refusal to call as a defense witness Dr. Delansandro, appointed by the court to examine her co-defendant Janet Weaver in regard to an insanity plea. Appellant's main defense at trial was that she followed the direction of her co-defendant, whose trial was severed from appellant's, and that her fear of the co-defendant, the fifteen year old sister of the victim, was responsible for her unwilling participation in the crime.
Out of the presence of the jury, Dr. Delansandro was examined as to what his testimony about Janet Weaver would show. In response to a question whether Janet Weaver had hostile and aggressive tendencies, he answered that his evaluation was restricted to her competency and criminal responsibility. In response to another question he said that he was unable to tell from his evaluation of Weaver whether she had participated in the murder. The court asked whether psychologists could predict future behavior and whether psychologists could tell from an evaluation if a patient had committed a specific act. Dr. Delansandro answered no to both questions. Stating that he recognized the uncontroverted evidence of Janet Weaver's participation in a brutal murder, the trial judge ruled that allowing the testimony of the psychologist as to Janet Weaver's characteristics would be trying Janet Weaver through the testimony of the psychologist in her co-defendant's trial. The court refused to allow Dr. Delasandro to testify before the jury because of irrelevancy and questionable scientific reliability. Appellant argues that his testimony should have been allowed because there was no patient-physician relationship which would have given rise to a privilege. However, the testimony was not excluded because of privilege but because of problems of relevancy and reliability. He testified outside of the presence of the jury as to his unwillingness or inability to testify as to either the hostile and aggressive tendencies of Weaver or as to whether she committed the murder.
3. Appellant's next enumeration concerns the voluntariness of her confession. Appellant contends that the confession should have been suppressed because she was not reminded of her Miranda rights between interviews and because she requested the presence of an attorney. We start with the proposition that the trial court's findings following a Jackson v. Denno hearing as to voluntariness of a confession will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Friar v. State, 253 Ga. 87, 316 S.E.2d 466 (1984).
There was testimony at the Jackson v. Denno hearing that appellant was given her Miranda rights before the first interrogation after she became a suspect in the crime. Appellant, a high school graduate with two quarters of college, signed a waiver of rights form at 5:05 P.M., March 6, 1986. She was interviewed following the signing of the waiver of rights form. During the interview and approximately two hours after appellant was given her Miranda rights, other detectives went to her residence, and between 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohannon v. State
...and may inflame the jury, if the photographs are relevant and material to any issue in the case, they are admissible." Thomas v. State, 259 Ga. 202, 204(4), 378 S.E.2d 686. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of these three photographs. Compare Brown v. State, 260 ......
-
Caldwell v. State
...S.E.2d 567 (1985). 12. We find no error in the admission of photographs of pre-autopsy views of Sara Caldwell, see Thomas v. State, 259 Ga. 202(4), 378 S.E.2d 686 (1989); different perspectives of the crime scene, see Black v. State, 261 Ga. 791(15), 410 S.E.2d 740 (1991); and views of the ......
-
State v. Clark
...be repeated in every set of circumstances, (see, e.g., Mainor v. State , 259 Ga. 803 (3), 387 S.E.2d 882 (1990) ; Thomas v. State , 259 Ga. 202 (3), 378 S.E.2d 686 (1989) ), Detective Stephens was required to take more action to ensure adherence to the constitutional protections afforded by......
-
Browner v. State
...are admissible if relevant and material to any issue, even if they are duplicative and may inflame the jury. See Thomas v. State, 259 Ga. 202, 203(4), 378 S.E.2d 686 (1989). This Court has deemed pre-autopsy photographs to be relevant and material, and therefore admissible, if they illustra......