Van Kleeck v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39418,39418 |
| Citation | 250 Ga. 551,299 S.E.2d 735 |
| Parties | VAN KLEECK v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kermit N. McManus, Roberts & McManus, Dalton, for Mary Margaret Van kleeck.
Stephen A. Williams, Dist. Atty., Dalton, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Janice G. Hildenbrand, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for State.
Mary Margaret Van Kleeck appeals from her convictions of the murder of and theft by taking from Doc Hicks, for which offenses she was sentenced to life imprisonment and a concurrent five-years' imprisonment, respectively.
1. The appellant's first enumeration of error is the denial of her motion for mistrial on the ground that the testimony of Detective Swinney, regarding the substance of the appellant's in-custody oral statement, was admitted in contravention of OCGA § 17-7-210 (Code Ann. § 27-1302), because the witness' version was allegedly more incriminating than the written summary furnished to the defense before trial.
OCGA § 17-7-210 (Code Ann. § 27-1302) provides in pertinent part: "(b) If the defendant's statement is oral or partially oral, the prosecution shall furnish, in writing, all relevant and material portions of the defendant's statement ... (d) If the defendant's statement is oral, no relevant and material (incriminating or inculpatory) portion of the statement of the defendant may be used against the defendant unless it has been previously furnished to the defendant, if a timely written request for a copy of the statement has been made by the defendant."
The summary of the appellant's oral statement furnished to the defense prior to trial contained these statements: "The vase is the object Ms. Van Kleeck had told authorities she used to kill Mr. Hicks ... After I had hit Dock [sic] in the head and dragged him into the bathroom, she stated, she went to Calhoun to get Bruce [her husband] ... She said that when she dragged Dock [sic] into the bathroom, she had placed towels around his head, neck, and shoulders to keep the blood from running down on him."
At trial, Detective Swinney related the appellant's oral statement as follows:
We find that the written summary (which need not be a verbatim account) furnished "all relevant and material portions of the defendant's statement" regarding the complained of testimony, with the possible exception of the statement that the appellant had struck the victim in the head repeatedly, until the vase broke. While this statement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McTaggart v. State
...v. State, 183 Ga.App. 41, 357 S.E.2d 862 (1987); Johnson v. State, 177 Ga.App. 705, 340 S.E.2d 662 (1986); see also Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1), 299 S.E.2d 735 (1983). Such written summary must fairly cover all "relevant and material portions of defendant's statement" both as to inc......
-
White v. State
...to him in writing all relevant and material portions of any oral statement he gave while in police custody. See Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1), 299 S.E.2d 735 (1983); Reed v. State, 163 Ga.App. 364, 365, 295 S.E.2d 108 (1982). If the state fails to comply with such a timely request, th......
-
Cook v. State
...if a timely written request for a copy of the statement has been made by the defendant.' " (Emphasis supplied.) Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1), 299 S.E.2d 735. In the case sub judice, defendant argues that the trial court should not have allowed the statement because "it introduces an ......
-
Bowe v. State
...a reversal based on the State's failure to provide a written statement, harm, as well as error, must be shown. Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551(1), 299 S.E.2d 735 (1983). The statements on the videotape were merely cumulative of other previously rendered testimony to which appellants interp......