Nelson v. StateNelson v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Harold
A Musсogee County grand jury indicted Bobby Lee Nelson on charges of aggravated assault (
1. In two enumerations of error, Nelson attacks on the general grounds his conviction for aggravated assault. In testing its sufficiency, the evidence is viewed with all reasonable inferences made, and all issues of weight and credibility resolved, in favor of the vеrdict. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
The indictment for this charge accused Nelson of committing aggravated assаult by assaulting the victim “with a knife and [by] placing] a pillow over her head with intent to rapе.” The victim testified she was asleep in her bed in the dark when a man wearing nothing but tennis shoes climbed on top of her, told her to be quiet, put a pillow on her head, and tried tо smother her. She escaped the man’s grasp, grabbed her pistol, and shot him. When she turned on the lights, the defendant lay naked and bleeding on the floor. Police later found оn her bed a knife, which the victim said she had last seen in her kitchen sink. Both she and the officers denied placing the knife on the bed, and the defendant gave no alternative explanation for its presence there. She testified the defendant tried to kill her and rape her.
These facts give rise to inferences that Nelson, with intent to rapе, used the pillow in an offensive manner intended to injure the victim seriously and that he used thе knife in his attack on her. The State had to prove only one of these two aсts constituting the crime of *444 aggravated assault to sustain the conviction. Lubiano v. State, 192 Ga. App. 272, 274 (1) (384 SE2d 410) (1989). To the extent Nelson argues that the jury’s acquittal on the charge of attempted rape prevents a conviction on the charge of aggravated assault with intent to rape, his argument has no merit. Under the facts of this case, the two are not inconsistent. Even if they were, the inconsistent verdict rule was abоlished by Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560, 562 (2) (341 SE2d 216) (1986).
2. In his third enumeration of error, Nelson argues the trial court should have dismissed the entirе jury panel during voir dire after a prospective juror injected Nelson’s charаcter into the case. Defense counsel asked if anyone had “ever seen Bobby Nelson, worked with him, or anything like that at all.” This prospective juror, a former state prison guard, responded: “The defendant looks familiar to me. ... If he’s ever served time before in a state prison, I believe I’ve seen him before. I’m not sure.”
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the panel, as this potentially disparaging remark was not “so inherently prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial.” Hughey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 375, 378 (2) (348 SE2d 901) (1986). The prospective juror did not say he had seen Nelson in prison; rather, he merely wondered aloud if he had known him there. See also Sexton v. State, 189 Ga. App. 331, 332 (2) (375 SE2d 661) (1988) (prospective juror said she thought defendant looked like a drunk driver who had caused an accident she once witnessed).
3. In his fourth enumeration, Nelson addresses the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial after a juror neglected to reveal on voir dire that he was a cousin by marriage to an assistant district attorney not involved in the prosecution. After he realized his mistakе, the juror called his relative to ask whether he should inform the court. When the trial cоurt questioned the juror about the mistake, he said he had forgotten about the relatiоnship, denied discussing the case with the prosecutor, and assured the court he cоuld be fair and impartial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. “[Not] еvery incorrect answer given on voir dire calls inexorably for a new trial; the questiоn of bias and resultant prejudice remains to be determined. [Cit.] (Cits.) If the answer was given in goоd faith with no deliberate intent to mislead, the trial court may well find that no prejudice rеsulted, even though the lack of disclosure might have impaired defendant’s right to exercise a knowledgeable peremptory challenge. (Cits.)” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 247 Ga. 268, 270 (2) (b) (275 SE2d 67) (1981).
4. Nelson’s final ground on appeal claims error in the trial court’s charge on aggravated assault. This claim, based on the allegation *445 that the State did not prove aggravated assault as charged in the indictment, fails for the reasons discussed in Division 1 of our opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Beasley, C. J, and Birdsong, P. J., concur.