*1 breadth, instruc- need, jury of additional and formation a. the trial court. Walter sound discretion of left tions are 570) (1987). gave The trial court 668-69 jury’s which addressed instructions additional no of discretion. We find abuse specific questions. failing did not err The trial court
b.
imprisonment;
request
was not made at
charge on false
requested
(b),
evidence,
and the evi-
the close of the
or before
State, 242
Bouttry v.
Ga.
61-
charge.
dence did not authorize
(247 SE2d
light
jury’s
most favorable to the
Reviewing the evidence
ap-
verdict,
trier of fact could have found
we find that a rational
beyond a reasonable doubt.
kidnapping
murder and
pellant guilty of
Virginia,
Roger Bradley, E. Bowers, Attorney J.
Roger Queen, Attorney, G. Michael District Grant, General, Leonora SLINEY v.
Hunt, 9.8 challenge to appeal presents a constitutional unlawful for provides: “It shall be Code which public containers or to person to remove waste or litter from Sliney was Earl than material other of the ordi- dumpster, violation removing refuse from a cited for following interlocutory appeal application for granted We nance. the accusation. his motion to dismiss the trial court’s denial of face and process,1 on its violates due contends the statute We disa- him, void-for-vagueness doctrine. under the persons of vague process A if it is so gree. statute violates due “ meaning and dif- necessarily its guess must at ‘common Process Furthermore, the Due application.’ fer as to its ‘[a]ll [Cits.] men warning that give sufficient requires Clause is that the law is forbidden.’ as to avoid that which [Cit.]” themselves so The Lowndes Suggs, re trial. Sliney’s equal protection argument at which was abandoned 1 Weneed not reach adequate which a County standards regulate responsibilities intelligence can his conduct and common — finding The dissent conform with the statute. order to “waste,” “litter,” vague because of reference nance — for removing “refuse” and because the defendant was bage,” cited However, *2 among these terms. while the distinguishes drafted, synonymously, inartfully is evident these terms are used be it a forbid or forced con- rules of construction subtle and the limiting extending or purposes either statute’s struction Management, operation, Earth Inc. v. reaching or absurd results. 444 County, Heard Jacksonville, citing Papachristou City 405 U. Sliney, S. 156
(92 110) (1972), argues the statute’s reference to SC 31 LE2d sanitary proscribes per actions workers or “any person” mistakenly In might items discarded. legitimately sons who retrieve vagueness Papachristou Supreme Court struck for a Jacksonville including vagrancy ordinance which criminalized numerous activities any place place or from without lawful “wandering strolling pose night walking]” and railers and object,” or “common “common unconstitutional, Supreme In holding the ordinance brawlers.” intelligence give person ordinary a fair Court concluded it failed forbidden, placed contemplated that his conduct unfettered notice police, arbitrary thus encouraged in the hands of the and discretion Hubbard 256 erratic arrests and convictions. See Ga. 637 and (352 virtually rejected argument Hubbard we an Sliney’s upheld, void-for-vagueness pro a against identical to due disorderly challenge, criminalizing a cess maintenance Hubbard, Sliney, argued the statute under which he was house. like constitutionally legitimate might prohibit arrested activities. How ever, case, principle argument as we noted that overlooks constitutionally proscribed one whose conduct own conceivably challenge might not a law because it unconsti tutionally to others. Id. at 638. not, ordinance,2, was whether wise or enacted what safety purposes in
county perceived to be health and the exercise County, its police power. Cannon v. Coweta not adopted accomplish purposes Its are terms any unduly oppressive it is not of the reasons unconstitutional argued. Smith, concur, J.,P. except All the Justices Benham, J., who dissent. 2 based, statute, 16-7-43, on ordinance is The state OCGA which the
prohibits removal, dumping, but of litter. not
169 Justice, dissenting. Presiding Smith, gives “person not do believe contemplated is forbidden.” fair notice 989) Harriss, States v. U. S. SC
United (1954). Furthermore, illegally places “unfettered discre- the ordinance Alabama, Thornhill v. police.” 310 U. S. tion in the hands of 1093) 736, 84 LE states: “It shall be unlawful Subsection of the ordinance public waste litter from containers or any person remove or any other than The ordi- material 1) removing from: acts. It nance forbids three forbids container; in- public removing from “litter” from “waste” inside container; public putting material other than side a public express into a terms of the ordinance bage” container. only to “waste” or “litter” that has been make it unlawful remove placed public It is not unlawful illegally inside containers. public garbage into a that has been climb container and remove placed any prohibition is there nor It is placed “litter” that been outside of the safety” protects see “health difficult to how this ordinance *3 opinion County. of (Majority p. the citizens Lowndes purpose prevent If scattering the of the is to the of the by the to contents of container around the container who wish contents, through purpose already been established look the (c) part: in “It shall be provides pertinent OCGA 16-7-47 which § the person indiscriminately disperse for . .. scatter or unlawful of, . . .” contents or otherwise vandalize appellee meaning The asserts that the guidance however, (1); in nance can be found the definitions in drafting the statute the ordi- must not have been considered [among things] nance. The statute litter “means all . . . waste. . .” could not . OCGA 16-7-42 if statutory have used the its ordinance because drafting definitions unnecessary “litter” means “waste” it redundant to forbid all If the removal of all the “litter” when “litter” is “waste.” use incorporated, definitions had been the ordinance would “litter,” sim- the all inclusive term the conduct would forbidden ply the removal of “litter.” given the
The lack fair notice is further established citation activity is removal appellant. Although forbidden the container, appellant “waste” or “litter” from the cannot was issued citation for “refuse.” The word “refuse” enforcing found subsection If the authori- the ordinance. correctly contemplate ties cannot the forbidden conduct recite citation, issuing a then it said cannot be under this ordinance of what conduct is has fair notice According brief, ob- one item Mr. forbidden. classify flag. I for an American American one refuse tained was an flag “litter” or “refuse.” as “waste” or joins in dis- Benham to state that Justice am authorized
sent. May 17, Closson, Jr., Folsom, Luke E.
William R. Solicitor, Shelton,
Richard W. SCHIRATO v. Hunt, felony Christopher M. was convicted of the murder of felony robbery, underlying Bramblett, theft Gene T. of armed by taking, imprisonment murder to life and sentenced by taking ten-year charge charge.1 sentence on the theft and a consecutive general grounds, appeals, enumerating as He error ruling marital trial trial witness could not assert the court’s that a privilege, charge flight, its denial of his motions for mistrial, trial on his claims of and its denial of his motion for new ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. day picked up defendant, murdered,
The he was hitchhiking, agreed him and let live who was work Later, Atlanta, where the his house. the victim drove the defendant purchased together were seen sev- defendant some cocaine. two throughout day, they and, eral times after returned to the victim’s somebody evening, gunshots, voices, house that begging witnesses heard loud very quickly. help, leaving and a car the victim’s house girl victim, The defendant later told his got friend he had tried to rob *4 gun, pulled struggle in a out with because gun killed, the victim was “freaked out” when the went off and robbery merged sentencing The convictions of murder and armed were poses. 14, 1987, was indicted The crimes were committed on November and the defendant trial, Following County grand jury January a Habersham in its 1988 term. trial, 29, 1989, April His motion for new was convicted on March and sentenced on 1989. 8, 1989, 18, 1989, May August on December filed and amended was denied 2, 1990, appeal January in this court on Janu notice of was filed on and the record docketed ary argument on March 1990. The was submitted for decision without oral case