Robert William Strickland was convicted by a jury of the murders of Eddie Lee Carroll, Lester Lee Carroll and Bonnie Mae
1. Strickland’s psychiatric evaluation ordered by the trial court 2 was not a “critical stage” of the proceedings; hence, no error was committed by denying his counsel’s request to be present during the evaluation. United States v. Cohen, 530 F2d 43 (9) (5th Cir. 1976). The first enumeration of error lacks merit.
2. The trial court correctly submitted the issue of Strickland’s mental competency to stand trial to a special jury rather than summarily declaring Strickland incompetent. Code Ann. § 27-1502 (a). Strickland contends in support of his second and third enumerations of error that the report of the Forensic Service Team unequivocally declared him incompetent to stand trial. However, the report shows that Strickland could understand the charges against him and appreciate the consequences, as well as communicate with his attorney. 3 The report merely expresses concern with Strickland’s ability to deal emotionally with the testimony against him. The second and third enumerations of error are without merit.
3. The trial court did not err by refusing to direct a verdict for Strickland on the special plea of insanity or in thereafter ordering Strickland to stand trial on the indictments. Members of the Forensic Service Team testified that they were concerned with whether or not Strickland would be able to control his emotions during trial on the indictments; whether he might commit suicide. Dr. Ermutlu also testified, “I felt that he was aware of the charge, and he was aware of the consequences, and I also felt that he probably could communicate with his lawyer, if some relationship was established.” Strickland contends that elsewhere in the transcript of proceedings Dr. Ermutlu contradicted himself, particularly in respect to the question of whether or not Strickland would be able to establish a
4. Strickland contends in his sixth enumeration of error that the trial court should not have required him to plead to the indictment before his mental competency was determined under his special plea. The record fails to provide a factual basis for this enumeration of error. While represented by counsel, he pled to the indictment on January 18, 1980. His special plea was not filed until January 21, 1980, three days later. The sixth enumeration of error presents nothing for our consideration.
5. His seventh enumeration of error also is not supported by the transcript of proceedings, which shows without contradiction that that grand jury foreman, whose name appears on the State’s list of witnesses, took no part whatsoever in the grand jury’s deliberations regarding the indictments returned against Strickland.
6. The eighth enumeration of error, contending that the trial court erred in overruling Strickland’s objections to the State’s proposed voir dire questions numbers two and three, also finds no factual support in the transcript. 4 The trial court did not rule on the objections when made. Ruling was deferred until the next day to give counsel an opportunity to rewrite their questions. When the court inquired the next day whether the State’s questions numbers one, two and three would be asked, defense counsel replied. “That’s right.” The State thereafter expressly withdrew question number two. The eighth enumeration of error presents nothing for our review.
7. Strickland contends in his ninth enumeration of error that the trial court improperly refused to allow him to ask his proposed voir dire questions numbers eleven, twenty-one, twenty-four and twenty-five to prospective special jurors. The transcript establishes that the trial court allowed his eleventh question to be asked.
8. Strickland contends in his tenth enumeration of error that the trial court should have excused prospective special jurors for cause. These persons are not named in the enumeration of errors or brief, but the page references to the transcript relate to the examination of Mr. Clarence A. Johnson and Mr. Earley Roberts, Jr. Mr. Johnson was excused for cause. Mr. Roberts responded that he could lay aside anything he might have heard, read or known about the case and base his verdict solely upon the evidence and the charge of the court. No error has been illustrated.
Westbrook v. State,
9. The eleventh enumeration of error is unsupported by the transcript. Strickland apparently contends that the trial court required defense counsel to use the word “opinion” instead of the word “inclination” while examining prospective special jurors on voir dire. One or more jurors had expressed a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word “inclination.” The court suggested the substitution of words. Defense counsel was permitted, however, to continue using the word “inclination” during examination of the remaining prospective special jurors. The eleventh enumeration of error is without merit.
10. The trial court did not err by failing on its own motion to order transcription of the opening statements of counsel on trial of the special plea. Trial of the special plea was civil in nature.
Williams v. State,
Neither did the trial court err by refusing to allow defense counsel to explain during his opening statement and closing argument the consequences under Code Ann. § 27-1502 of a jury finding in favor of the special plea. See
Coker v. State,
11. The issue on the special plea was Strickland’s mental capability and comprehension at the time of trial.
Crawford v. State,
12. Admitting the testimony of the ambulance dispatcher about a telephone call he received was not error. The dispatcher testified that the caller asked for an ambulance to be dispatched to a certain location on Whitmire Circle because there were five to seven people lying up there dead. The caller said he was the killer and that he was calling from a pay telephone because he had shot out the telephone at the house. He said he had been under medical treatment, was insane, and would turn himself in to the police. Witnesses testified that the location of the crime scene was as described by the caller and that the Carroll house telephone had been shot out. The. arresting officer testified that Strickland expressed surprise at his arrest because he previously had indicated that he planned to turn himself in. These circumstances suffice for admissibility of the dispatcher’s testimony.
Constantino v. State,
13. The trial court’s comments and instructions to the jury were proper following Strickland’s violent outburst in the courtroom during trial of his special plea of incompetency to stand trial. After Strickland’s objection to the court’s remarks, defense counsel was given an opportunity to submit a curative instruction to be given by the court. Counsel declined to prepare a specific curative instruction. Instead, he merely requested the court to give a general instruction to the effect that the court had not intended to express any opinion about Strickland’s disruptive behavior. The court so charged the jury, and the defense expressed no objection to the charge. The charge was more than adequate to have cured any error if, indeed, there had been error. The sixteenth and seventeenth enumerations of error are without merit.
14. The trial court’s charge to the jury on the issue of Strickland’s special plea of incompetency to stand trial was full and fair.
Crawford v. State,
supra. The court need not have charged the exact words of Strickland’s first request to charge.
Herrmann v. State,
15. Mrs. Dean was not disqualified for cause to serve as a juror. Her response on voir dire indicated that she would lay aside any impression or opinion she might have formed based on what she had
16. Strickland objected to the State’s characterizing the killings as “brutal” during its opening statement. He contends that the court ignored his objection. To the contrary, the transcript reveals that the court in effect, if not in express words, sustained the objection by immediately admonishing the assistant district attorney that his opening statement “is limited to what you expect to show and the issues, and that alone.” The trial court later charged the jury that the opening statements were not evidence. If additional admonitions or instructions were desired, they should have been sought by the defense. The word “brutal” as applied to the killings the prosecution was seeking to prove was not inherently damaging.
Pryor v. State,
17. (a) Admission of certain photographs and letters into evidence was not error. Various ones of the photographs illustrated the premises, the locations of the victims’ bodies, and the locations, nature and extent of their wounds. Other photographs showed the gunshot damage to the telephone that the victim June Carroll was using to call the police when Strickland first shot the telephone then repeatedly shot her. The photographs were relevant and admissible.
Whitaker v. State,
(b) June Carroll’s testimony established that because she was Strickland’s former girl friend she was acquainted with his handwriting. Although she had not received the last of the letters before the killings, her identification of Strickland’s handwriting was sufficient to authorize introduction of all of the letters, including the last one.
Daniels v. State,
18. Admission of the testimony of a ballistics expert that he had checked Strickland’s hands for gunshot residue soon after arrest was
19. Enumerations of error twenty-four through twenty-nine and thirty-two through forty relate to the refusal of the trial court to give Strickland’s requests to charge numbered one through nine. The court’s charge adequately covered the defenses of insanity and delusional compulsion. Accordingly, failure to charge in the exact language requested was not error.
Irwin v. State,
20. The trial court properly refused to allow the defense to open up once more the issue of whether or not Strickland was competent to stand trial. This issue already had been adjudicated on the special plea. Strickland contends the purpose of going into this question once more was to show the jury that he could not testify. There is no merit in the thirtieth enumeration of error.
21. No error was committed by precluding defense counsel from alluding during his closing argument to the consequences
6
of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Such matters are inappropriate for
22. The court properly charged the jury about the forms of possible verdicts. The forty-first enumeration of error is without merit.
23. The jury found “that the offense of murder of Bonnie Mae Carroll was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind.” The jury further found that “the offense of murder of Eddie Lee Carroll was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, the murder of Bonnie Mae Carroll.” As to the remaining murder count, the jury found that “the offense of murder of Lester Lee Carroll was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of other capital felonies, the murder of Bonnie Mae Carroll and Eddie Lee Carroll.” Accordingly, this case does not involve what has come to be known as “mutually supporting aggravating circumstances” within the meaning of
Gregg v. State,
24. No evidence in aggravation was offered by the State during the presentence hearing. Rather, the State relied on evidence submitted during the guilt-innocence phase of the proceedings. The State’s notice of aggravating circumstances, given some forty-nine days before trial, did not fail to comply with Code § 27-2503. Due process concepts are not involved.
Bowden v. Zant,
25. The forty-sixth enumeration of error, wherein Strickland contends that the trial court erroneously refused to allow him to recall a State’s witness on the issue of mitigation, lacks a factual foundation in the transcript of proceedings. Drs. Ermutlu and Eichler of the Forensic Services Team were subpoenaed by the State and examined extensively by Strickland during trial of the special plea of incompetence to stand trial. Both were excused after that trial. Dr. Eichler testified again during the guilt-innocence phase, and again was excused. Dr. Ermutlu was not available and had not been subpoenaed. The court exercised its discretion and granted a continuance so that Dr. Ermutlu could testify the next morning. Following his testimony, he again was excused. After return of the
26. No error was committed in giving the jury the written list of aggravating circumstances as charged by the court.
Tucker v. State,
27. The jury sent a note to the court asking about the possibility of parole if Strickland received a life sentence. The court instructed the jury that their obligation was to return a verdict on the evidence and charge of the court; that they were responsible for the truth of their verdict but not its consequences; that under law the court could not answer their questions about parole. “[A] trial court’s flat refusal to answer a question about parole is not improperly suggestive and is not error.” Tucker v. State, supra at p. 730 (11). The forty-eighth enumeration of error is without merit.
28. The forty-ninth enumeration presents Strickland’s contention that the trial court erred in submitting the trial judge’s report at the termination of the trial. This ground was not briefed or argued. Because this is a death case, we have considered the enumeration. We find no reversible error in the report itself or in the manner or method of its submission. The forty-ninth enumeration of error is without merit.
29. The death penalty opposition responses of the venire persons who were excused for cause met the requirements of Witherspoon v. Illinois,
30. The jury heard evidence authorizing the following to be found as facts beyond a reasonable doubt. June Carroll and Strickland had dated for severál years. June had terminated the relationship. Strickland had tried to reestablish the relationship. Alternatively, he begged her to be his wife and threatened her if she refused. About three weeks before November 30, 1979, Strickland asked June how she would like it if he killed her mother, brother and
Thereafter he wrote her several letters, pleading, sometimes on religious grounds, for her to marry him, and alternately threatening that if she did not marry him he would go insane and do something he would be sorry for. In the letters, he agreed to hold his temper, to be gentle, and to attend church with her. The last of the letters, postmarked November 29, 1979, had “Last Letter” written on the envelope. In it, he stated that he could be pushed only so far, that he must prove to her he said what he meant, and that if she were to date anyone else, he would do what he said he would do.
On the evening of November 29th, he went to the Carroll house and attempted to persuade June that they were man and wife within the meaning of certain biblical verses. When the discussion became unpleasant, and one of June’s male relatives told him to leave, he left stating “I’ll see ya’ll in court.”
During the day on November 30,1979, he bought a box of 9mm. ammunition and attempted to buy an extra magazine or clip for his Browning High Power 9mm. semi-automatic pistol. That night, he went again to the Carroll residence after telling June that he wanted to pick up some things he had given her in the past. He wore his heavy coat in the Carroll residence which concealed the large, multi-shot automatic pistol. He followed June back to her bedroom, continuing to plead with her about their relationship.
After June left the room, hoping Strickland would leave, she heard her sister Bonnie tell Strickland, “You’re getting June upset, why don’t you just leave her alone and leave?” She heard Strickland respond in a loud voice, “I’ve heard enough of you, shut your damn mouth,” after which she heard Bonnie scream, “No, Rob, don’t.”
The shooting then started. While Strickland was shooting Bonnie, June ran to the hall telephone to summon help. Strickland followed her into the hallway. While June pled for mercy, Strickland first shot the telephone, and then shot June twice in the abdomen, twice in each thigh, five times in her lower buttocks around her rectum and vagina, and once in her right foot. While leaving the Carroll home, he shot and killed June’s disabled brother, Eddie, killed her father, Lester, and wounded her mother, Junie. Her brother Cecil saw Strickland shooting, and the empty cartridges flying from the pistol, but he ran and avoided either being killed or wounded.
Strickland then shot through the gas tank of the Carroll automobile, and drove away.
The ambulance dispatcher on duty on the night of the shootings
Testimony of the investigating officers and of surviving members of the Carroll family who were present during the shootings 7 described the crime scene, including the many shots that were fired and the position of the bodies. An empty magazine for a 9mm. pistol of the type found in Strickland’s automobile at the time of his arrest was found in the Carroll house. When Strickland was arrested, the pistol’s magazine was loaded alternately with solid and hollow point rounds of ammunition. The pistol was lying on the automobile seat within easy reach. Strickland questioned the arresting officers as to why he was being arrested since he had agreed to turn himself in.
Ballistics evidence established that the many empty pistol cartridge casings found in and outside the Carroll home were fired in Strickland’s pistol. Bullets removed from the victims’ bodies had been fired from Strickland’s pistol.
Medical testimony established that Bonnie’s head and face were badly mutilated by either four or five shots fired at a distance of six inches or less. The exact number of shots could not be determined because of the massive damage and disfigurement to her face. She died from injuries to her brain. Lester was shot twice in the left side and once in the neck. He died of his chest wounds. Eddie died of two shots in his chest and abdomen.
Strickland pled both incompetency to stand trial and insanity at the time of the offenses. During trial of the special plea of incompetency to stand trial, the examining professionals expressed concern about how trial on the indictments might impact upon Strickland’s emotional problems, particularly, whether he might commit suicide. However, Dr. Ermutlu testified, “I felt that he was aware of the charge, and he was aware of the consequences, and I also
A crime lab expert testified that he performed a standard test on Strickland’s hands to determine the presence or absence of gunshot residue. Finding none, his opinion was that Strickland either had not fired a pistol that day or had washed his hands. The jury was entitled to find from the testimony of the surviving members of the Carroll family that the latter alternative was the fact.
The foregoing evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts of guilty under the current legal standard. Jackson v. Virginia,
Sentence Review
As required by Ga. L. 1973, p. 159, et seq., Code Ann. § 27-2537 (c) (1-3), we have reviewed the three death sentences imposed in this case. We have considered pursuant to the mandate of the statute the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, and the evidence concerning each crime and the defendant. We conclude that the sentences of death imposed in this case were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.
The jury found the following aggravating circumstances:
(1) Count 1. “The offense of murder of Eddie Lee Carroll was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, the murder of Bonnie Mae Carroll.” Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (2).
(2) Count 2. “The offense of murder of Lester Lee Carroll was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of other capital felonies, the murders of Bonnie Mae Carroll and Eddie Lee Carroll.” Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (2).
(3) Count 3. “The offense of murder of Bonnie Mae Carroll was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind.” Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (7).
We have applied Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (2) when two murders were committed in a relatively short period of time in what could be fairly viewed as one continuous course of criminal conduct.
Peek v. State,
The present case is distinguishable from Godfrey v. Georgia,
In
Hance,
supra at p. 862, we held, citing Godfrey v. Georgia, supra, that “The instantaneous death of a victim as a result of being killed by a shotgun, although the scene of death be gruesome (no other facts appearing), does not constitute torture, aggravated battery or depravity of mind.” The scene of Bonnie’s death was gruesome. She had been shot through her head and face with hollow-point bullets fired from a powerful automatic pistol held less
Depravity may be proven in many ways, including, as in the present case, by the killing of a victim in a vile, horrible or inhuman manner so as to inflict mental distress upon her close relative.
Blake v. State,
We find that the evidence factually substantiates and supports the finding of the foregoing aggravating circumstances and the sentence of death by a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgment affirmed.
Appendix.
Jackson v. State,
Notes
Code Ann. § 27-2537.
The authority of the trial court to order the evaluation was not questioned on appeal.
Presnell v. State,
The issue on a special plea of insanity is “whether he is capable at the time of the trial of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him and rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and is capable of rendering his attorneys such assistance as a proper defense to the indictment preferred against him demands.”
Brown v. State,
These questions related to the trial on the special plea of incompetence to stand trial.
“I would listen to the testimony and judge for myself.”
Hospitalization, etc.
June, Ronnie and Cecil survived and testified.
“ ‘The offense of murder . . . was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman . . .’ ”
“ ‘. . . in that it involved . . . depravity of mind. . .’ ”