Lee v. State
This text of 559 S.E.2d 475 (Lee 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, Derrick Lee, was sentenced to life in prison for the malice murder of Andre Wilson.1 On appeal, Lee contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the presence of cocaine in the victim’s blood, and that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of a defense witness who would have testified that earlier on the day of the crime, he saw the victim looking into cars for one with keys in it, presumably for the purpose of stealing a car. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. At trial, Lee testified that he shot Wilson in self-defense when Wilson, who was unarmed, attempted to steal Lee’s car. According to Lee, he feared that Wilson was attempting to run him over with the car, and that he shot in self-defense. We conclude, however, that a rational trier of fact could have rejected Lee’s claim of self-defense, and could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee, who shot at Wilson seven, times, committed the offense of malice murder in shooting Wilson.2
2. Lee contends that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the presence of cocaine in the victim’s blood. We have, however, recently rejected similar contentions,3 and conclude that the trial court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion in limine.4
3. Lee next contends that the trial court erred in granting the [708]*708State’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Certonious Harris, who would have testified that the victim was seen the morning of the incident looking into automobiles trying to find one with keys in it, presumably for the purpose of stealing one of the cars. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence in question.
First, Lee offered testimony that Wilson was in the process of stealing his car when he was shot, the physical evidence supported Lee’s testimony, and the State offered no evidence to contradict Lee’s evidence that Wilson was stealing Lee’s car when Lee shot him. Second, the central issue in the case was whether Lee’s use of force was justified, and the evidence that Wilson may have been looking in other cars earlier in the day was not relevant to show whether, in stealing Lee’s car, he attempted to harm Lee so as to make Lee’s use of deadly force reasonable and necessary.5 Because there was other probative evidence that Wilson was stealing Lee’s car when he was shot, because Harris’s testimony would have reflected negatively on the victim’s character, and because Harris’s testimony that Wilson had been seen looking in cars earlier on the day of the crime was not relevant to the central issue of whether Lee was justified in shooting Wilson, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Harris’s testimony.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
559 S.E.2d 475, 274 Ga. 707, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 356, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-ga-2002.