Bernice Mae Lloyd was convicted by a jury and received a life sentence for the murder of her ex-husband, Timothy Manning. 1 She argues that a new trial should have been granted because the verdict is strongly against the weight of the evidence and because certain “dying declarations” should have been excluded.
1. Nothwithstanding her contention, supported by expert testimony, that her acts were the product of fear consistent with the battered woman’s syndrome,
2
the jury was authorized to find that her killing the victim with a shotgun as he approached her in the kitchen of her home was an intentional, malicious act. Thus the evidence, viewed in favor of the verdict, would have authorized a rational factfinder to find her guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. We find no error in the admission in evidence of certain of the victim’s statements as dying declarations. OCGA § 24-3-6. The evidence, although conflicting, amply supported the required foundation, and the jury was properly charged that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were made by the victim while in a dying condition and while aware that he was in such a condition before it could consider the victim’s statements.
Carter v. State,
3. By supplemental brief, filed by the defendant’s new attorney, the defendant raises for the first time on appeal ineffective assistance of counsel. Under
Smith v. State,
Judgment affirmed and remanded.
Notes
This shooting occurred on November 16, 1984, and the victim died on December 27, 1984. The defendant was indicted for murder on March 6, 1985 and tried between November 13 and 15, 1985. She filed her motion for new trial on December 13, 1985, and the transcript was certified on September 1,1986. The motion for new trial was denied and filed on October 31, 1986. Her notice of appeal was filed in the Glynn Superior Court on November 18, 1986, docketed here on November 25, 1986, and submitted for decision on January 9, 1987.
For an analysis of the battered woman’s syndrome, see
Smith v. State,
