Young v. State, 64279
| Decision Date | 14 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64279,64279 |
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 175,163 Ga.App. 507 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
H. Bradford Morris, Jr., Maysville, for appellant.
Bruce L. Udolf, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Gainesville, for appellee.
Defendant was indicted for the offense of escape while serving a sentence for the offense of armed robbery. He was found guilty by a jury and upon the denial of his motion for new trial, he appeals. Held:
1. In defendant's first enumeration of error he contends "[t]he Trial Court erred in refusing to allow evidence as to coercion and justification to be brought before the jury." Defendant admitted the escape but his defense was that he did so by reason of justification (Code Ann. § 26-901(2); Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1272) under such coercion as reasonably believing the act was the only way to prevent "his imminent death or great bodily injury." Code Ann. § 26-906 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1274). However, this enumeration of error is not well taken for when he sought to introduce his testimony in regard thereto he did so fully without objection except in one instance as to defense counsel leading the witness with respect to the guard threatening inmates (in particular the defendant and others). Defense counsel was also allowed a thorough and sifting cross-examination of the guard who denied that he ever pointed a gun at the defendant or acted like he was going to shoot the defendant, nor did he hold a gun in a threatening fashion. It is true that the trial court did rule out this testimony over defense counsel's insistence that it was presented "towards justification." Nevertheless, counsel did not proceed further in the examination of this witness who had denied any coercion of the defendant or anyone else except that he had threatened two inmates since he had been on the detail but he had lawful cause to do so as to those two inmates. Defense counsel failed to show what other evidence he intended to produce as to coercion and justification as to this witness despite the fact that the court ruled out this testimony which was merely a denial by the guard that he had ever used coercion or threatened the defendant. It is true that under the defendant's sole defense he was entitled to a thorough and sifting cross-examination of this state's witness as to the circumstances surrounding the defendant's and another inmate's simultaneous escape but we find no reversible error. There is no merit in this enumeration.
2. Defendant's motion for continuance is the subject matter of his next enumeration. Counsel contended he did not have sufficient time in which to prepare the case and he did not have an opportunity to subpoena certain witnesses whose testimony would be material to the defendant's defense, that is, the guard of the prison work detail had on other occasions threatened the various prisoners on the work detail. At the hearing on the motion for continuance the defendant testified that the guard Defense counsel insisted this testimony of other inmates would be relevant to defendant's defense. However, the motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and same will not be disturbed by this court unless manifestly abused. See Williams v. State, 148 Ga.App. 55(1), 250 S.E.2d 848; Nix v. State, 157 Ga.App. 406, 407(1), 277 S.E.2d 768; Foster v. State, 213 Ga. 601, 603, 100 S.E.2d 426. As the colloquy surrounding defense counsel's opportunity to investigate and prepare defendant's trial showed that he had some three full days to do so, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance.
3. The third enumeration is concerned with the failure of the trial court "to charge on the defenses of justification and coercion," that is, the defendant reasonably believed that the only way to prevent his injury from the guard was for him to escape. Defendant's testimony involves a claim of coercion from the activities of the guard. He testified that he was in fear of injury from the guard pointing the gun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eason v. State
...See Wood v. State, 204 Ga.App. 467, 419 S.E.2d 534 (1992); Hendrix v. State, 199 Ga.App. 599, 405 S.E.2d 576 (1991); Young v. State, 163 Ga.App. 507, 295 S.E.2d 175 (1982). 6. Eason contends the trial court erred in imposing the fine without first determining his ability to pay. We agree. S......
-
Davis v. State, 66921
...court is not required to give a charge on a defendant's "sole defense" if it is not authorized by the evidence. Young v. State, 163 Ga.App. 507, 508, 295 S.E.2d 175 (1982). According to appellant's testimony, the escape was the original idea of his co-defendant and he "went along" because h......
-
Fowler v. State
...the act. See id. at 442, 350 S.E.2d 21. Thus, the failure to charge on these issues was not error. See generally Young v. State, 163 Ga.App. 507, 508(3), 295 S.E.2d 175 (1982); see also Graham v. State, 236 Ga. 378, 380-82, 223 S.E.2d 803 7. Finally, appellant contends the trial court impro......
-
Barnett v. State, A00A0317.
...section of statute "defin[ing] when a renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary and complete"). 14. See Young v. State, 163 Ga.App. 507, 508(3), 295 S.E.2d 175 (1982) (not error to refuse to give written request on defense of justification, where request was not complete statement o......