Mullen v. StateMullen v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Sognier
Duane Mullen was convicted of criminal damage to property in the first degree, and he appeals from the dеnial of his motion for new trial.
1. We first address appellant’s enumeration on the general grounds. Construed to support the verdict, the evidence adduced at trial established that on the night of May 5, 1989, Leroy Scuffman, a seventy-seven year old Buford resident, was alone at the home he shared with his son, Arnold, when he observed a white four door Toyota being driven slоwly up the circular drive of his house at about 8:30 p.m. Scuffman testified that the same car returned an hour or two later and the male driver fired two pistol shots into the house. The investigating officers found two spent bullets fired from a 9 mm handgun in the house. At triаl, Scuffman identified appellant, whom he had met on a prior occasion, as the person who had fired the shots, although at the time of the shooting he was unable to identify the *27 perpetrator.
Arnold Scuffman testified that he had met appellant and Juаnita Mullen, appellant’s wife at the time, when they patronized the car lot where he was employed. He testifiеd that he and Juanita Mullen became friends after she and appellant separated in March of 1989. Both he and Juanita Mullen testified that on two occasions, once in April and once several weeks after the shooting, aрpellant had threatened and assaulted Arnold, admonishing him to stay away from Juanita. She testified that at around 6:00 p.m. on thе night of May 12, she met appellant at his request, and that after they began arguing about her relationship with Arnold, appеllant assaulted her and threatened her with a knife and a handgun. She also recalled seeing appellant’s cаr parked at his house between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. that night. Arnold testified that he picked up Juanita at the hospital around 10:00 p.m., аnd then returned home to learn of the shooting.
A search of the house appellant shared with his parents yielded twо types of 9 mm handguns which appellant’s father testified belonged to him, and an instruction manual for a third type was found in aрpellant’s car. The State’s ballistics expert testified that the bullets found in the Scuffman residence could have beеn fired from one of these three types of handguns, but his tests established they were not fired from either gun found at appellаnt’s home.
During his testimony, appellant admitted assaulting Arnold Scuffman, but denied striking his former wife except in self defense. Both he аnd his brother, David, testified that appellant arrived at David’s house at 7:00 p.m. on May 12 and stayed there until the next morning. Appеllant also acknowledged that he drove a white four door Toyota.
We find this evidence sufficient under the standard sеt forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979) to authorize appellant’s conviction. See Staton v. State, 165 Ga. App. 572 (3) (302 SE2d 126) (1983). Although, as appellant notes, the evidence agаinst him was largely circumstantial, “[circumstantial evidence must exclude only reasonable hypotheses; it need not еxclude every inference or hypothesis except that of [appellant’s] guilt. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 (359 SE2d 662) (1987). We are satisfied that the evidence adduced in this case excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of apрellant. See id.
2. Appellant challenges the trial court’s decision to allow Investigator K. G. Vincent, the chief investigаting officer, to sit at counsel table with the prosecutor after the rule of sequestration had been invoked although he was the last witness to testify for the State. He maintains this procedure violated
The record reveals that when appellant’s counsel objected to Vin *28 cent’s presence, the prosecutor stated he needed Vincent’s assistance during the trial and that to compel him to testify first would require the State to present its case out of sеquence. This court previously has held that in similar circumstances, the exception of a witness from the rule of sequеstration does not constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, e.g., Mathews v. State, 183 Ga. App. 224 (1) (358 SE2d 639) (1987); Fowler v. State, 179 Ga. App. 492, 493 (2) (347 SE2d 322) (1986), particularly where, as here, the unsequеstered witness testified about post-arrest events. Mathews, supra.
3. In two enumerations appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing into evidence testimony regarding his altercations with Arnold Scuffman and Juanita Mullen, asserting that the evidence hаd no probative value and impermissibly placed his character into evidence. We do not agree, as we find the circumstances in the case at bar to be analogous to those in Faircloth v. State, 253 Ga. 67-68 (1) (316 SE2d 457) (1984). The appellant in Faircloth was charged with the murder of his estranged wifе and the aggravated assault of the man his wife was seeing, and the Supreme Court held evidence of previous difficultiеs between the appellant and the male victim shortly before the crime occurred was admissible to show statе of mind and motive. Here, appellant was charged with criminal damage to a house in which Arnold Scuffman, the man who had established a friendship with appellant’s estranged wife, was living, and thus evidence of appellant’s prior attacks on Arnold and Juanita was similarly admissible.
4. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error concern statements made by the trial judge during the charge to the jury, which appellant asserts constituted expressions of opinion by the judge in violatiоn of
(a) The trial court instructed the jury that “you are only concerned with the guilt or innocence of the defendant, аnd you are not to concern yourselves with anything concerning punishment.” We find no merit in appellant’s contention thаt this charge constituted an expression of opinion by the court as to appellant’s guilt. See Ross v. State, 173 Ga. App. 313, 314 (4) (325 SE2d 919) (1985); compare Gaither v. State, 234 Ga. 465, 466 (2) (216 SE2d 324) (1975).
(b) The judge also infоrmed the jurors that on the back of the indictment was “a blank: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant [blank].’ Whatever your verdict is, write it in there. . . .” Wе disagree with appellant that the reference to one blank in any way suggested to the jury that the only possible finding was a one-word verdict of “guilty,” especially given that the judge instructed them to write in their verdict, “whatever [it] is.”
Judgment affirmed.
Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.