Burton v. State

494 S.E.2d 666, 268 Ga. 888, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 344, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 31
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 26, 1998
DocketS97A1456
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 494 S.E.2d 666 (Burton 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
Burton v. State, 494 S.E.2d 666, 268 Ga. 888, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 344, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 31 (Ga. 1998).

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

A jury convicted Patrick Burton of malice murder and felony murder in the shooting death of Victor Love.1 Burton appeals and challenges two jury instructions and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Because the charges contain no reversible error and because Burton has not shown his counsel’s performance to be deficient or harmful, we affirm.

The evidence showed that Burton, Raedel Jackson, Jerry Bell, and Jarvis Savage were playing basketball on July 16, 1994 when they decided to rob someone. The four went to Burton’s house and while there, Jackson loaded a gun with bullets. The four left after Bell’s mother called and asked him to return home. While taking a shortcut to Bell’s home, they encountered the victim Victor Love returning from the store. Savage testified that he and Bell acted as lookouts as Burton and Jackson approached the victim. A struggle ensued and Jackson shot Love three times at close range and robbed him. The four fled and Burton and Jackson buried the gun. Burton and Jackson flagged a friend for a ride home and admitted to the friend that they had just shot someone. Burton later admitted to police that he had talked of robbing someone that day and being present when the murder occurred and he led police to the gun.

1. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Burton guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.2

2. Burton contends that the trial court’s instructions to the jury [889]*889permitted the jury to find Burton guilty based on his mere presence. A review of the trial court’s charge reveals that the trial court correctly charged that mere presence at the scene of a crime will not authorize a finding of guilty and that the state bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s knowledge of and intentional participation in the crime. Burton also contends the trial court erred in giving the “two equal theories” charge disapproved by the court of appeals in Langston v. State3 The trial court, however, correctly charged the statutory language of O.C.G.A. § 24-4-6, on direct and circumstantial evidence, on reasonable doubt and grave suspicion. Viewed as a whole, we do not find reversible error in the charge.

Decided January 26, 1998. Derek H. Jones, for appellant. Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Andrew J. Saliba, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Angelica M. Woo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

3. After a review of the whole record, we find no merit in Burton’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective.3 4

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Stafford v. State
523 S.E.2d 307 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
494 S.E.2d 666, 268 Ga. 888, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 344, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-state-ga-1998.