Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HIGHTOWER v. THE STATE.

CARLEY, Justice.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of malice murder and sentenced to life. His motion for new trial was denied and he appeals.

The crimes occurred on August 28, 1990. Appellant was indicted on March 10, 1992. The verdict was returned on May 6, 1992. Appellant's motion for new trial was filed on June 1, 1992, amended on February 10, 1993 and denied on February 11, 1993. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on March 11, 1993. The instant appeal was docketed on April 19, 1993 and submitted for decision on June 11, 1993.

1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds.

The evidence shows that, while appellant and his co-defendant were attempting to rob the victim, the co-defendant shot the victim. Appellant, with gun in hand, then fled with co-defendant. "[V]iewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the [S]tate, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that [appellant] was a party to the crime of murder. [Cit.]" Bowley v. State, 261 Ga. 278, 279 (1) ( 404 S.E.2d 97) (1991). See also Amerson v. State, 259 Ga. 484, 485 (1) ( 384 S.E.2d 392) (1989); Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 594 (1) ( 351 S.E.2d 625) (1987); Hoerner v. State, 246 Ga. 374 (1) ( 271 S.E.2d 458) (1980); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.C. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).

2. Appellant

contends that the trial court erred in refusing to sever his

case from that of his co-defendant, based upon the admission in evidence of a "similar crime" on the part of [the co-defendant]. The evidence in issue did not implicate [appellant] directly. The trial court gave appropriate limiting instructions to the jury, cautioning that the evidence could be considered only in regard to [the co-defendant]. There was no error.
Hannah v. State, 261 Ga. 336, 337 (2) ( 404 S.E.2d 440) (1991).

Likewise, severance was not required simply because the co-defendant was charged with additional offenses which were not charged against appellant. See Ledbetter v. State, 202 Ga. App. 524, 525 (2) ( 414 S.E.2d 737) (1992); McIntosh v. State, 185 Ga. App. 612, 614 (4) ( 365 S.E.2d 454) (1988).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

CARLEY, Justice.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1993.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HIGHTOWER v. STATE
(Sep 20, 1993)