Carver v. State
This text of 375 S.E.2d 599 (Carver 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
The appellant, Leroy Carver, was convicted of malice murder and aggravated assault. He appeals, and we affirm.1
[825]*8251. The evidence presented by the state showed that on September 10, 1985, Carver, who had been drinking and had a blood-alcohol content of .12, engaged in an altercation with a friend, Sarah Crosby, at her residence over possession of some household goods that she had obtained from him. Without provocation, he brandished a knife and chased her son, Timothy Hutcheson,2 into her apartment, where he attacked and severely wounded Hutcheson with the knife. Hutcheson, attempting to defend himself with a pool stick, succeeded in striking Carver with the stick before Carver wounded him so seriously that he could no longer grasp the stick. During the melee another of Crosby’s relatives, Johnny King, Jr., tried to help Hutcheson, but Carver fatally wounded him with the knife.
Carver contends that Crosby, Hutcheson, and King lured him into the apartment in order to rob him. He testified that they beat him on the head with the pool stick, held him on the floor, stomped him, and searched his pockets. He claimed that he was able to get a hand loose and retrieve a knife from his pocket, which he used to defend against their attack by knifing King and Hutcheson.
Although the evidence is in conflict, we conclude that, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination, the evidence would authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of murder and aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
3. The appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to give the jury his requested charge on self-defense. We find no error, as the court gave a charge that adequately covered the same principles of law as the requested charge. Strickland v. State, 250 Ga. 624 (6) (300 SE2d 156) (1983).
4. Appellant asserts that the court erred by failing to charge on certain principles of justification. The appellant did not request an instruction on these principles, but he contends that nevertheless the court should have instructed on the principles sua sponte. However, under the circumstances of this case we find no error.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
375 S.E.2d 599, 258 Ga. 824, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carver-v-state-ga-1989.