Burnett v. State
This text of 515 S.E.2d 150 (Burnett 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.
Opinion
Anthony Burnett was convicted of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in connection with the bludgeoning death of James Garrett, Jr. 1 In his sole enumeration of [886]*886error on appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.
[886]*886While attending a card game at the home of friends, an argument ensued between Burnett and the victim, whereupon both men were told to leave the premises. Burnett returned 15 minutes later armed with a shotgun. He announced, “I’m gon’ up there and kill. . . that M. F.” His Mends attempted to subdue him and urged him to stay. Although no one actually observed Burnett leave the residence, a witness testified, “He disappeared and the shotgun disappeared.” He returned to the residence later that evening carrying the barrel portion of a broken shotgun. He told the several people present that “he had killed the motherfucker,” and that the body could be found on the front porch of the victim’s home. They rushed to that location (two houses away), where they found the lifeless body of the victim, and then summoned the police.
The autopsy revealed two three-and-a-half inch lacerations on the back of the victim’s head. In the opinion of the medical examiner, these wounds were inflicted by two blows with the butt of a shotgun, causing the victim’s brain to hemorrhage. The victim also suffered three broken ribs, and a ruptured liver and kidney.
Burnett testified that he hit the victim with the butt of his shotgun, but that he did so in self-defense. However, on cross-examination Burnett revealed that after he struck the initial blow, the victim fell to the ground, and that he hit him again with the butt of the shotgun, causing the weapon to break in two.
The jury was authorized to reject Burnett’s justification defense, and to find instead that he acted upon his threat to kill Garrett, thus satisfying the malice aforethought element of malice murder. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), for a rational trier of fact to have found Burnett guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
515 S.E.2d 150, 270 Ga. 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-state-ga-1999.