Burke v. State

540 S.E.2d 614, 273 Ga. 294
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 8, 2001
DocketS00A1467
StatusPublished

This text of 540 S.E.2d 614 (Burke v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burke v. State, 540 S.E.2d 614, 273 Ga. 294 (Ga. 2001).

Opinion

Benham, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from Dewayne Perez Burke’s convictions for murder, two counts of possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, and four counts of aggravated assault.1 The evidence at trial [295]*295authorized the jury to find the following as facts. Burke was involved in a fight outside a lounge. After the fight was broken-up by law enforcement officers, Burke ran toward a car containing two of the opposing combatants and three other people. In full view of three law enforcement officers, Burke fired several shots into the car, killing one person. Ordered to drop his gun, he ran away, but surrendered shortly thereafter. The murder weapon was later found at the scene.

Decided January 8, 2001. Ellis R. Garnett, for appellant. Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Tammie J. Philbrick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

1. The evidence adduced at trial and set out above was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Burke guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Gibson v. State, 272 Ga. 801 (1) (537 SE2d 72) (2000).

2. Burke contends on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to issue cautionary instructions to the jury after the prosecuting attorney engaged in allegedly improper argument. In response to defense counsel’s objection to what he considered a personal attack, the trial court admonished the prosecuting attorney not to use “such inflammatory language about your brother in the bar.” Because the trial court gave the relief requested, directing the prosecuting attorney not to use inflammatory language about defense counsel, no cause for reversal is shown. Roberts v. State, 267 Ga. 669 (9) (482 SE2d 245) (1997).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Roberts v. State
482 S.E.2d 245 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Gibson v. State
537 S.E.2d 72 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
540 S.E.2d 614, 273 Ga. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-state-ga-2001.