Thrasher v. State
| Citation | 456 S.E.2d 578,265 Ga. 401 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S95A0026,S95A0026 |
| Parties | THRASHER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Vicki E. Carter, UGA Legal Aid Clinic, Janet S. Willy, University of Georgia School of Law, Athens, for Thrasher.
Harry N. Gordon, District Atty., Athens, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, James D. Love, Birmingham, AL, for the State.
Jamaine Thrasher was convicted of felony murder, predicated on the underlying offense of aggravated assault, and sentenced to life in prison. 1 He appeals, raising two evidentiary enumerations of error. We affirm.
Thrasher and a group of friends borrowed a car and went to a chaperoned party. They stayed at the party for a short period of time, then left to buy and drink beer. Before returning to the party, Thrasher and Fred Thomas put their guns (Thrasher had a .32 caliber pistol, Thomas a .38) in the glove box. The group returned to the party and Thrasher exchanged words with the victim after stepping on the victim's foot. Shortly thereafter, the chaperons called a temporary halt to the party and Thrasher and his friends went outside. One of Thrasher's friends handed Thrasher and Thomas their guns. When the victim emerged sometime later, Thrasher approached him, hit him, and shot him in the face.
1. Although Thrasher concedes the general grounds, we have reviewed the evidence and pronounce it sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find Thrasher guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Lark v. State, 263 Ga. 573, 436 S.E.2d 1 (1993).
2. Thrasher asserts the trial court erred by permitting the State to place his character into evidence by allowing one witness to testify that he observed Thrasher's group smoking marijuana before the party and another to testify he observed Thrasher's group throw a bottle into the woods. We find no error. The evidence was admissible to demonstrate the acts and circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime. Pless v. State, 260 Ga. 96, 97(2), 390 S.E.2d 40 (1990). McKenzie v. State, 248 Ga. 294, 296(5), 282 S.E.2d 95 (1981).
3. Although Thrasher subpoenaed Fred Thomas as a witness, he objected when the State called Thomas to the stand because Thomas's name was not included on the witness list that the State provided him and he had not been able to interview Thomas. The trial court adjourned for the day to give Thrasher an opportunity to interview the witness. When the trial resumed the following morning, Thomas took the stand without further objection.
It cannot be said that the trial court erred by allowing Thomas to testify. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferrell v. Head, Civil Action File No. 1:02-CV-2896-TWT.
...from appellate counsel's alleged deficient performance. Head v. Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 410, 554 S.E.2d 155 (citing Thrasher v. State, 265 Ga. 401, 402-03, 456 S.E.2d 578 (1995); White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 109-10, 317 S.E.2d 196 (1984)). In Thrasher v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia made......
-
Park v. State
...§§ 1, 4.13 OCGA §§ 17-16-2(a), 17-16-3.14 White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 109-110(3), 317 S.E.2d 196 (1984).15 Thrasher v. State, 265 Ga. 401, 402(3), 456 S.E.2d 578 (1995).16 Cook v. State, 199 Ga.App. 523, 524(2), 405 S.E.2d 341 (1991).17 Britten v. State, 221 Ga. 97, 99(2), 143 S.E.2d 176 (......
-
Head v. Ferrell, No. S01A0840
...to testify, Ferrell cannot show prejudice stemming from appellate counsel's alleged deficient performance. See Thrasher v. State, 265 Ga. 401, 402-403(3), 456 S.E.2d 578 (1995); White v. State, 253 Ga. 106, 109-110(3), 317 S.E.2d 196 (5) Ferrell's appellate lawyer did not render ineffective......
-
Arnold v. State
...99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also Ross v. State, 279 Ga. 365, 366(1), 614 S.E.2d 31 (2005); Thrasher v. State, 265 Ga. 401, 402(1), 456 S.E.2d 578 (1995). 2. Arnold contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not investigate his mental......