The appellant Ulysses Burns was indicted for the murder of Ethel Lee Smith. Following a jury trial in Ben Hill Superior Cоurt, appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The evidence presented at trial showed that on the night of April 15, 1975, appellant went to a bar in Fitzgerald, Georgia, where he met the victim. Soon after meeting, they left the bar together and went to the house оf Charlie Bulgie, a friend of appellant. Bulgie gave appellant some vodka and рermitted the couple to use his spare bedroom for the night.
According to appеllant, he and the victim went to the bedroom and began drinking the vodka. The victim took off all of her clothes. As appellant was taking off his pants, a pistol which he had taken from his sister’s trailer, without permission, fell out of his pocket and onto the floor. As he picked it up, it fired. The bullet .struck the victim in the head. The appellant fled, taking the victim’s purse.
1-2. Appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to charge, in the absence of request, the law on invоluntary manslaughter.
State v. Stonaker,
Appellant has shown no evidence to support a charge on involuntary manslaughter on the ground the victim’s death was caused by his violation of Cоde Ann. §§ 26-2903, 26-2909.
The only defense theory pursued by appellant was accident. At no time did he admit to having intentionally fired the pistol or to having intentionally pointed it at the victim. At all times he maintained that the gun went off by itself. The state proceeded to show that appellant was guilty of murder. There was no evidence of involuntary manslaughter in the case. Therefore, it was nоt error for the court to fail to charge on involuntary manslaughter.
Bonds v. State,
3. Appellant requested the following charge: ". . . if you find that the defendant unlawfully fired a pistol within the city limits of Fitzgerald, Georgia, and in consequence thereof, the life of the decedent was taken . . . [without intent] . . . you wоuld be authorized to find the defendant, Ulysses Burns, guilty of involuntary
4. Appellant complains that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial, sua sponte, when a witness for the state testified upon direct examination that appellant had been in prison. It is well settled that a defendant cannot during trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and сomplain later.
Joyner v. State,
5. Appellant complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion fоr new trial because his conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence. In thе trial court, the jury was charged as to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and was charged that to convict on circumstantial evidence alone, thе proven facts must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis or conclusiоn except that of the guilt of the accused. The jury found appellant guilty. We find the evidence sufficient to support the jury verdict. It was not error to overrule the motion for new trial on the asserted ground.
Harris v. State,
6. It was not error for the trial court to overrule defendant’s motion for any of the reasons set out in appellant’s enumerations of error one through five.
Judgment affirmed.
