Brown v. State
755 S.E.2d 699
Ga.
2014
Check Treatment

BROWN v. THE STATE

S13A1543

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 3, 2014

294 Ga. 677 | 755 SE2d 699

HINES, Presiding Justice.

the similarities between the two transactions and not the differences. See

. We note that “[w]hile some aspects of the earlier crime differed from the one for which [appellant] was on trial, the similarities are striking.”
. Aрpellant also asserts the lapse in time between the two incidents was too great for the similar transaction evidence to be admissible. Lapse of time between the similar transaction and the crime at issue “generally goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, not to its admissibility.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
. Further, “[t]he exception to the general rule that evidence of independent crimes is inadmissible has been most libеrally extended in the area of sexual offenses.”
.4 Just as in the Reed case, here the trial court‘s factual findings regarding similarity of the two transactions are not clearly erroneous. Thus, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED MARCH 3, 2014.

David J. Walker, for appellant.

K. David Cooke, Jr., District Attorney, Nancy S. Malcor, Dorothy V. Hull, Assistant District Attorneys, Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rochelle W. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

HINES, Presiding Justice.

Kenneth Brown appeals from his convictions and sentences for the crimes of malice murder, aggravated assault, and giving false information to a law enforсement officer, all in connection with the axe ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍slaying of Charlotte Grant. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1

Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Brown and Grant were in a romantic relationshiр and lived together; Grant‘s two adult children, Keith and Christina Medley, also lived in the home. However, Grant remained married to another man. On December 24, 2010, Brown discovered that Grant had spoken by cell phone to her estrangеd husband, who lived out of state. Brown and Grant argued, and Grant asked her son Keith Medley (“Medley“) to get Brown‘s sister, Annie Pride (“Pride“), from next door, in hopes that Pride could convince Brown to leave. After Pride arrived, the argument continuеd, with Pride and Medley joining it, and Medley pushed Brown on the shoulder; at no time did Grant and Brown have physical contact. Brown left the house and returned with an axe, partially concealed behind his back. Brown then swung the axe repeatedly at Grant and Medley, using both hands; he did not speak while doing this. Medley and Grant attempted to retreat to the rear of the house where a door led outside, but Brown struck Grant multiple times with the axe. Grant fell limp, and Medlеy laid her in the doorway of the back door to the house and then ran to a nearby house to call 911. Pride summoned her husband Leon, who discovered Brown near the back door standing next to Grant with what appeared to be a stick; he told Brown to leave, and later realized that the stick was an axe.

Brown left the axe in the yard of an adjacent house; the attack left blood on Brown‘s clothing. Grant was fatally wounded, receiving at lеast four axe wounds to her skull and another axe wound to her body. Shortly after the killing, Brown was found by a police officer two blocks away. He gave the officer a false name and birth date and was arrested and takеn to a police station.

At the police station, Brown first told an investigating detective that he did not wield the axe, but that Medley had procured the axe in the rear of the house, began swinging it at Brown, and Grant was injured thereby. Whеn confronted with information the detective had gained through interviews with witnesses, Brown attempted to maintain his first version of events, then admitted that he had obtained the axe from outside the front door of the house, but claimed he did so because he was concerned that Medley might acquire a knife or other weapon from the rear of the house. Brown further stated that: even though Medley pushed him, it did not injure him; Medley displayed no other physical aggression toward him; and, he never saw Medley with a weapon. Brown also said that he argued with Grant because he provided the money for the household, and he did not want her speaking with her husband. He also stated that he was angry that Grant said that she would return to her husband. Brown further stated that he did not intend to harm Grant, but that when he was swinging the axe, he “possibly” struck her. The detective testified that Brown appeared to be angry that Medley had pushed him.

1. The еvidence authorized the jury to find Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted.

.

2. Seven months before trial, Brown moved to have incriminating statements he made during a custodial interview supprеssed, contending that they were made in violation of

; the motion also asserted that the incriminating statements “violate[d]”
. The motion was addressed, and denied, by a different ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍judge than the one who presided at trial.2 At trial, beforе opening statements, Brown‘s attorney said, “I think that the ruling by that judge is not appropriate, and does not carry the weight,” and requested that another Jackson v. Denno hearing be conducted before the State introduced evidence of any such incriminating statements. This was denied, as was Brown‘s similar motion made when the law enforcement officer to whom the statements were made was called to testify.

Brown contends that the order denying the motion to suppress is infirm because it does not explicitly state that the statements were made voluntarily. First, we note that in this case there is more than merely an implicit denial of the motion to suppress on the authority of Jackson v. Denno; the trial court explicitly denied the motion. Compare

;
. Nor is this a cаse in which the record reveals that the trial court erroneously believed that the question of whether the statements were freely and voluntarily made was simply for the jury. Compare
.

In any event, this Court has previously noted

our preference for trial cоurts to make findings of fact, if the evidence warrants them, substantially as follows: I find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was advised of each of his Miranda rights, that he understood them, that he voluntarily waived them, and that he thereafter gave his statement freely and voluntarily without any hope of benefit or fear of injury. (If the defendant denies having been advised of any one of his Miranda rights or says that he requested an attorney, specific findings as to the point in controversy should also be made.)

. But, the order denying Brown‘s motion did not follow this recommended procedure. “Generally, such a failure would require a remand for clarification. Sеe Parker v. State, 255 Ga. [at] 168 (1).” Id. at 667. However, Brown does not assert to this Court that there is evidence that would render the statements inadmissible for any reason, resting his argument solely on the procedural ground, and the record does not reveal suсh evidence. Therefore, we will not remand this case. Id. “However, we would remind the trial courts of this state of our preference ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍for findings of fact which comport with the form suggested in Berry v. State, [254 Ga. 101, 104-105 (1), n. 6 (326 SE2d 748) (1985)].” Id. See also
.

3. Brown submitted a written request to charge the jury the law regarding voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder, but the trial court did not give the charge. See OCGA § 16-5-2 (a).3 Brown contends that failing to give the instruction was error. “It is a question of law whether there is any еvidence to support a finding that the defendant acted ‘solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable pеrson. . . .’ OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). [Cit.]”

.

First, there was no basis for giving the requested instruction based upon physical provocation. Pretermitting whether physical or other provocation on Medley‘s part could support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as to the killing of Grant, see

, “[t]his Court has repeatedly held that neither fear that someone is going to pull a gun nor fighting prior to a homicide are types of provocation demanding a voluntary manslaughter charge. [Cits.]”
. Further, “[t]his Court has repeatedly held . . . that ‘acting out of fear is not the same as acting in the heat of a sudden irresistible passion’ as required by OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). [Cits.]”
.4

Nor does the mere fact that Brown and Grant argued before he left the house, retrieved the axe, and began his attack support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

As a matter of law, angry statements alone ordinarily do not ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍amount to “serious provocation” within the meaning of OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). [Cit.] “To put it simply, words alone [generally] are not sufficient provocation to excite the passion necessary to give rise to voluntary manslaughter.” [Cit.]

. Brown suggests that the argument coupled with sexual jealousy on his part constituted provocation sufficient to authorize the jury instruction. Although it has been held that adulterous conduct together with words can support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, see
, there is no evidence that Grant had recently engagеd in any sexual relations with her out-of-state husband, or that she taunted Brown with such conduct. Compare
;
. The trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

Judgments affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Notes

1
Grant was killed on December 24, 2010. On April 29, 2011, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Brown for the malice murder of Grant, the aggravated assault of Keith Medley, the crime of giving false information to a law enforcement officer, and for being a “recidivist.” Brown was tried before a jury January 9-11, 2012. He was found guilty of malice murder, aggravated assault, and giving false information to a law enforcement officer; the “recidivist” charge was not presented to the jury. On January 17, 2012, Brown was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, and consecutive terms of 20 years and 12 months in prison for aggravated assault and giving false information to a law enforcement officer. Brown moved for a new trial on February 3, 2012; he amended the motion on February 8, 2012, again on October 12, 2012, and finally on October 15, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the motion, as amended, was denied. On November 15, 2012, Brown filed a notice of appeal; the appeal was docketed in this Court for the September 2013 term and submitted for decisiоn on the briefs.
2
Although no transcript of the hearing on the motion appears in the record, during argument before the trial court, the State declared, without contradiction, that the hearing was held on August 15, 2011.
3
OCGA § 16-5-2 (a) reads: A persоn commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion rеsulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite ‍​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.
4
Although appellant was not charged in this case with a sexual offense, the evidence shows the aggravated assault upon which the felony murder conviction was predicated involved a sexual assault. The trial court instructed the jury on the law regarding defense of self as it pertained to the charge of aggravated assault against Medley.
Read the detailed case summary