Souvankhot v. State

453 S.E.2d 25, 265 Ga. 15
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 13, 1995
DocketS94A1842
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 S.E.2d 25 (Souvankhot 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
Souvankhot v. State, 453 S.E.2d 25, 265 Ga. 15 (Ga. 1995).

Opinion

Carley, Justice.

Appellant and three others were jointly indicted on alternative counts of malice murder, felony murder while in the commission of an aggravated assault, and aggravated assault. The case against appellant and two of his co-defendants was brought to trial before a jury. Although one of the co-defendants was granted a directed verdict of acquittal, the issue of the guilt of appellant and the other co-defendant was submitted to the jury. Guilty verdicts as to all three counts were returned against both appellant and the co-defendant, but the trial court imposed life sentences only as to the malice murder count. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 372 (5) (434 SE2d 479) (1993).

[16]*16Decided February 13, 1995. James S. Purvis, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carl P. Greenberg, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied and he appeals.1

Appellant enumerates only the general grounds. Although appellant admitted his presence at the scene and there was proof of his pre-existing enmity toward the victim, he relies upon the undisputed evidence that it was the co-defendant who actually fired the fatal shot. There was, however, eyewitness testimony that it was appellant who had produced the rifle and that, after giving that weapon to the co-defendant and observing the fatal shot fired, appellant fled the scene. Construing the evidence most strongly against appellant, it was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a culpable party to the co-defendant’s act of fatally firing the rifle at the victim. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). See also Amerson v. State, 259 Ga. 484, 485 (1) (384 SE2d 392) (1989); Tho Van Huynh v. State, 257 Ga. 375 (359 SE2d 667) (1987).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Tanthongsack v. State
453 S.E.2d 468 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 S.E.2d 25, 265 Ga. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/souvankhot-v-state-ga-1995.