Corthran v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Corthran v. State

514 S.E.2d 830, 270 Ga. 881

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1999

DocketS99A0017

StatusPublished

This text of 514 S.E.2d 830 (Corthran 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

Corthran v. State, 514 S.E.2d 830, 270 Ga. 881 (Ga. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Claude Emmett Corthran, Jr., was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Adekunle Balogun, a taxi driver.¹ In an interlocutory appeal, we held that Corthran’s videotaped statement was inadmissible at trial.² In this appeal, Corthran contends that the evidence was insufficient, the jury charge was confusing, and a chain of custody was not established for a spent bullet casing. Because there was sufficient evidence and no error, we affirm.

1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Balogun was dispatched to a Kroger store in Gwinnett County at 1:09 a.m. on July 16, 1995. Within minutes, a resident of a nearby apartment complex saw the taxi rolling against parked cars with its lights on and motor running. Balogun was found shot in the head. Two Kroger employees testified that they saw James Cothron and Claude Corthran sitting on a bench outside the store around one that morning; a third employee testified that she saw the two men enter a dark blue taxi.

Accomplice Nicholas Walker testified that he dropped Cothron and Corthran at the Kroger store and drove to a nearby apartment [882]*882complex. Minutes later Corthran came to the car nervous and out of breath and said that the cab driver had been shot. He received part of the twelve dollars taken from the victim and suggested they get rid of the gun. Police found a 25-caliber bullet and Balogun’s cell phone in Corthran’s suitcase, but no murder weapon. Testifying in his own behalf, Corthran admitted that he gave Cothron a loaded gun, rode with him in Balogun’s taxi, and heard a gunshot as he was climbing out of the taxi. He denied taking any money or the telephone. Balogun died from the gunshot wound to his head. A 25-caliber bullet from a semi-automatic pistol was removed from his head, and the spent casing was found on the rear floorboard of the taxi. 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 Corthran guilty of the crime charged.³

Decided April 12, 1999. Johnny R. Moore, for appellant. Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, David K. Keeton, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Frank A. llardi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

2. Contrary to Corthran’s contention, the trial court did not give a confusing jury charge or one that improperly shifted the burden of proof.⁴

3. In addition, the trial court did not err in admitting the spent bullet casing. The state established to a reasonable certainty that the spent casing offered into evidence was the same one that the responding police officer observed on the rear floorboard of the taxi.⁵ Moreover, since the bullet was recovered from the victim’s head and introduced into evidence, the casing was not a critical piece of evidence to the state’s cáse.⁶

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Claude Emmett Corthran, Jr., was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm in connection with the shooting death of Adekunle Balogun, a taxi driver.¹ In an interlocutory appeal, we held that Corthran’s videotaped statement was inadmissible at trial.² In this appeal, Corthran contends that the evidence was insufficient, the jury charge was confusing, and a chain of custody was not established for a spent bullet casing. Because there was sufficient evidence and no error, we affirm.

1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Balogun was dispatched to a Kroger store in Gwinnett County at 1:09 a.m. on July 16, 1995. Within minutes, a resident of a nearby apartment complex saw the taxi rolling against parked cars with its lights on and motor running. Balogun was found shot in the head. Two Kroger employees testified that they saw James Cothron and Claude Corthran sitting on a bench outside the store around one that morning; a third employee testified that she saw the two men enter a dark blue taxi.

Accomplice Nicholas Walker testified that he dropped Cothron and Corthran at the Kroger store and drove to a nearby apartment [882]*882complex. Minutes later Corthran came to the car nervous and out of breath and said that the cab driver had been shot. He received part of the twelve dollars taken from the victim and suggested they get rid of the gun. Police found a 25-caliber bullet and Balogun’s cell phone in Corthran’s suitcase, but no murder weapon. Testifying in his own behalf, Corthran admitted that he gave Cothron a loaded gun, rode with him in Balogun’s taxi, and heard a gunshot as he was climbing out of the taxi. He denied taking any money or the telephone. Balogun died from the gunshot wound to his head. A 25-caliber bullet from a semi-automatic pistol was removed from his head, and the spent casing was found on the rear floorboard of the taxi. 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 Corthran guilty of the crime charged.³

Decided April 12, 1999. Johnny R. Moore, for appellant. Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, David K. Keeton, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Frank A. llardi, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

2. Contrary to Corthran’s contention, the trial court did not give a confusing jury charge or one that improperly shifted the burden of proof.⁴

3. In addition, the trial court did not err in admitting the spent bullet casing. The state established to a reasonable certainty that the spent casing offered into evidence was the same one that the responding police officer observed on the rear floorboard of the taxi.⁵ Moreover, since the bullet was recovered from the victim’s head and introduced into evidence, the casing was not a critical piece of evidence to the state’s cáse.⁶

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.E.2d 830, 270 Ga. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corthran-v-state-ga-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack