Walden v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S96A0799,S96A0799 |
| Citation | 267 Ga. 162,476 S.E.2d 259 |
| Parties | WALDEN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jeb Chatham, Ellijay, for Scott Walden.
Roger Queen, District Attorney, Ellijay, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Caroline Wight Donaldson, Assistant Attorney General, Atlanta, for State.
This appeal is from Scott Randell Walden's conviction of murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. 1 The State adduced evidence at trial showing that after Walden and his father, the victim, quarreled about the use of the victim's truck, Walden took a rifle outside and fired through a window, wounding his father fatally in the back of his head. Walden took the truck and drove to a friend's house, wiping and discarding the rifle on the way, and called 911 from there. A neighbor who heard the shot found the victim still alive, and he lived until after the police arrived, but did not speak. Walden initially told the police he was not involved in the shooting, then claimed his rifle fired the fatal shot accidentally, then testified at trial that his father threatened him and moved toward him with fists clenched, at which point Walden picked up his rifle, went outside, and shot his father through the window. Other witnesses testified that Walden and his father, prior to the shooting, had discussed the life insurance Walden would receive if his father died, and that Walden had asked a witness some weeks before the shooting whether, if someone broke into the house, Walden would still get the insurance proceeds and the furniture in the house.
The issues Walden raises on appeal concern his unsuccessful efforts to introduce evidence of specific instances of his father's violent conduct toward others. Our review leads us to conclude that no error occurred in the exclusion of that evidence.
1. Having reviewed the record, we find the evidence sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Walden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Muff v. State, 254 Ga. 45, 326 S.E.2d 454 (1985).
2. When Walden gave notice of his intent to present evidence of the victim's previous acts of violence toward others, the trial court correctly ruled that the evidence would not be admissible unless Walden first made a prima facie showing of justification. Strong v. State, 264 Ga. 837(2), 452 S.E.2d 97 (1995). The remaining issues on appeal arise from Walden's effort to present evidence of specific instances of the victim's violence toward third parties.
A. Walden contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he did not make the required prima facie case of justification. In Strong, noting that a defendant wishing to present evidence of the victim's violence against third parties must make a prima facie case of justification, this court cited Chapman v. State, 258 Ga. 214(2), 367 S.E.2d 541 (1988). The prima facie case set forth in Chapman has three parts: "that the victim was the aggressor, that the victim assaulted the defendant, and that the defendant was honestly trying to defend himself." Id. Walden's testimony did not meet that standard. Although his testimony that his father advanced toward him with fists clenched may have shown that his father was the aggressor, Walden's testimony did not show that his father assaulted him or that he was defending himself when he fired the fatal shot. Since Walden's testimony did not satisfy the requirement of establishing a prima facie case of justification ( Strong, supra) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the victim's prior acts of violence toward third parties.
B. Contrary to Walden's arguments on appeal, the trial court's insistence that Walden establish a prima facie case of justification did not amount to a requirement that Walden testify. Although Walden is correct that Dubose v. State, 187 Ga.App. 293(2), 369 S.E.2d 924 (1988), permits a defendant to establish the prima facie case through the testimony of other witnesses, there is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. the State.
...facie case of justification by using the very evidence for which the prima facie case serves as foundation.” Walden v. State, 267 Ga. 162, 164(2)(b), 476 S.E.2d 259 (1996). Collier also complains that the three-pronged test should not be used to determine whether the victim's reputation for......
-
Brown v. State, S98A1875.
...was in imminent danger of being molested again shows that Brown's claim of justification was without merit. See Walden v. State, 267 Ga. 162, 163(2)(a), 476 S.E.2d 259 (1996). Because Brown failed to establish a prima facie case of justification for shooting Clarkson, the trial court correc......
-
Leslie v. State, A17A0068
...would have permitted him to introduce specific acts of violence committed by the victim against third parties.); Walden v. State, 267 Ga. 162, 163 (2) (a), 476 S.E.2d 259 (1996) (Even if the victim showed some aggressive behavior, the defendant still had to show that the victim assaulted hi......
-
Wright v. State
...him or that Wright was honestly trying to defend himself when he began shooting at Carmichael and others. See Walden v. State, 267 Ga. 162, 163, 476 S.E.2d 259 (1996) (even if the victim shows some aggressive behavior, the defendant must still show he was assaulted and honestly defending hi......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...153, 476 S.E.2d at 257. 231. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). 232. 267 Ga. at 155, 476 S.E.2d at 258. 233. Id. at 156, 476 S.E.2d 259. 234. 226 Ga. App. 93, 485 S.E.2d 582 (1997). 235. Id. at 93, 485 S.E.2d at 583. 236. Id. at 94, 485 S.E.2d at 583. 237. Id. 238. Id. 239. 2......