Webb v. State

566 S.E.2d 680, 275 Ga. 425
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 2002
DocketS02A0689
StatusPublished

This text of 566 S.E.2d 680 (Webb 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
Webb v. State, 566 S.E.2d 680, 275 Ga. 425 (Ga. 2002).

Opinion

Sears, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, Sallie Webb, appeals from her conviction for the [426]*426malice murder of General Lee Chambers.1 On appeal, Webb contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, that three jurors should have been stricken because of their relationship to her, and that the trial court erred in charging on intent. We conclude that these contentions have no merit, and affirm her conviction.

Decided July 15, 2002 Reconsideration denied September 16, 2002. Cassandra M. Ford, for appellant.

1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence would have authorized a rational trier of fact to find that Ms. Webb planned the murder of her sister’s estranged husband, found gunmen to shoot the victim, provided them with a gun, and drove them to the victim’s home on the night of the crime. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of malice murder.2

2. Ms. Webb contends that three of the jurors who served on her jury were disqualified under OCGA § 15-12-135 (a) by reason of their consanguinity to her. The record, however, contains no evidence that any of the jurors were related to Ms. Webb. For this reason, this contention is without merit.

3. Ms. Webb contends that the trial court erred by charging the jury that “[a] specific intent to commit the crime charged is an essential element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” More particularly, Ms. Webb contends that the use of the word “specific” renders the charge an incorrect statement of the law. However, because Ms. Webb did not object to the trial court’s charge or reserve her right to object to it, she is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal.3 Moreover, Ms. Webb does not state how the charge at issue was incorrect, and we conclude that the charge was not misleading or confusing and that the charge considered as a whole covered the relevant principles of law.4

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Thompson, J, who is disqualified. Fredric D. Bright, District Attorney, Wilson B. Mitcham, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, ThurbertE. Baker, Attorney General, Jennifer S. Gill, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Berry v. State
480 S.E.2d 32 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Turner v. State
531 S.E.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 S.E.2d 680, 275 Ga. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-state-ga-2002.