Thompson v. StateThompson v. State
Appellant Darcy Thompson was convicted of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Tyrone Cochran. On appeal, Appellant‘s sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury оn the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.1 For the following reasons, we affirm Appellant‘s conviction.
According to Clark, when she and Appellant started dating, Cochran became jealous and wanted her back. Clark testified that several verbal encounters occurred between the two men, and during these “run-ins,” Cochran would sometimes threaten
According to Clark, on the morning of March 13, 2017, she and Appellant got into an argument, and Clark left their house with her children, including her newborn daughter, and went to Cochran‘s house. Later that morning, Appellant‘s sister went to Cochran‘s house and told Clark to go home because Appellant was planning to come to Cochran‘s house, presumably to bring Clark and her children back home.3 Cochran then rented a hotel room for Clаrk because he had to go to work and did not want to leave her alone at his house. Clark went to the hotel, but shortly after arriving, she
The following day, March 14, Clark borrowed Appellant‘s phone while he was asleep and sent a text message to Cochran, which she immediately deleted from Appellant‘s phone. The text stated that she was still in love with Cochran, that her “heart [was] with” him, and that she wanted to come back home to him. However, Clark remained with Appellant that night.
Around 2:30 p.m. on March 15, Appellant left Clark at his house аnd drove to a nearby convenience store, KT‘s, to meet with Stacia Burke, a woman he knew from the neighborhood, about selling his cell phone to her. Burke and her cousin, Haley Henry, drove to KT‘s together to meet Appellant. After arriving, Henry entered the store, and Burke got into Appellant‘s silver Highlander SUV to examine his cell phone. While Burke was in Appellant‘s SUV, she saw a red car drive around the store a couple of times and then slow down by Appellant‘s SUV. Appellаnt‘s mood changed as
Around the same time, Henry was exiting KT‘s, and a rеd car “zoomed around” her, circled a couple of times around KT‘s, and slowed down by Appellant‘s SUV. Henry then saw the red car follow Appellant‘s SUV out of KT‘s parking lot. Henry got back into her car, and after a couple minutes, Henry аnd Burke heard what sounded like fireworks. Henry and Burke left KT‘s and observed the red car stopped in the road.
That same afternoon, Kathleen Ricks went to KT‘s on her way to work to pick up some food. She had just returned to her car when she heard gunshots. She ducked, and when she looked up again, she saw a red car stopped in the middle of the road.
Milton Ricks, Kathleen‘s nephew, was also in the parking lot of KT‘s around this time and heard gunshots. He noticed two vehicles parked closely together in the roadway – one in front of the other. The first vehicle, the make and model of which Milton could not
The police arrived and found a red Charger stopped in the roadway with numerous bullet holes in the front driver‘s side from the fender to the windshield. They observed Cochran in the driver‘s seat, with blood covering his chest, and noted what appeared to be bullet wounds in his shoulder, arm, and chest. Emergency personnel arrived and transported Cochran to the hospital, where he later died from his injuries. The police collectеd numerous shell casings from a .40-caliber handgun4 around and inside Cochran‘s
Within minutes of the shooting, Appellant returned home and told Clark that he had shot Cochran. When Clark asked why, Appellant said he “got tired of [Cochran] messing with him.” Appellant changed clothes and left the house on foot.
At about 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. the same afternoon, an acquaintance of Appellant‘s, Cordell Sutton, was driving from Swainsboro to his job on Jekyll Island. On the way out of town, Sutton saw Appellant walking down the road. Appellant stopped Sutton and asked for a ride to Statesboro. Sutton agreed and dropped Appellant off at his cousin‘s house in Statesboro that evening. The next day, March 16,
At trial, Appellant admitted shooting Cochran. Appellant testified that Cochrаn periodically followed Appellant and Clark when they were driving somewhere together, but on these previous occasions, Appellant would typically ignore Cochran and keep going. However, on the afternoon of Mаrch 15, Appellant testified that he was “in fear.” Appellant stated that he did not see Cochran until Cochran‘s red Charger sped up behind Appellant‘s SUV as he was leaving KT‘s, and he could see Cochran in his rearview mirror “pointing something black at [him].” Appellant said Cochran was waving a black object and swerving behind him, telling him repeatedly to “stop the car.” Appellant testified that he had previously been the victim of a shooting, sustaining gunshot wounds to his stomach and ribs that required surgery. Appellant said the prior shooting arose from a similar situation where someone was following him. Appellant said, “I knew if [Cochran] could have got
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter. We see no merit to this contention because the evidence did not support this charge.
At trial, Appellant submitted a written request to chаrge the jury on voluntary manslaughter. At the close of the evidence, the trial court informed the parties that it would not give the voluntary manslaughter charge because the evidence arguably supported a finding that Appellant shot Coсhran in self-defense, not as the result
If there is any evidеnce, however slight, to support a properly requested charge of voluntary manslaughter, then the trial court must give it. But a charge on voluntary manslaughter is warranted only where it can be shown that the accused was so influenced and еxcited that he reacted passionately rather than simply in an attempt to defend himself. A charge on voluntary manslaughter is not available to a defendant whose own statement unequivocally shows that he was not angered or impаssioned when a killing occurred, and when the other evidence does not show otherwise.
Id. at 496-497 (citations and punctuation omitted).
Appellant argues that his testimony about being the prior victim of a shooting and believing that Cochran would shoot him on March 15, 2017, was “sufficient provocаtion to excite the passion for voluntary manslaughter,” and the trial court erred in failing to give the corresponding charge.
“This Court has repeatedly held that neither fear that someone is going to pull a gun nor fighting prior to a homicide are
For these reasons, we conclude that there was “no error in the trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury that it might consider voluntary manslaughter as an alternative to felony murder.” Id. at 791.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.