Vincent v. StateVincent v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Pope
Defendant Myra Smith Vincent and her sister Mattie Smith were charged with aggravated assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and possession of a fireаrm during the commission of the other offenses named in the indictment. Defendant’s sister pled guilty to all charges. Defendant was tried before a jury and acquitted of aggravated assault and armed robbery but convicted of kidnapping and possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony. She appeals her convictions.
The evidence adduced at trial reveals that the victim, Albert Gross, had known dеfendant and her sister for about 15 years and had gone to school with the sisters’ nephew. On February 23, 1990, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the victim drovе over to the sisters’ home in DeKalb County in his truck to visit them. Immediately after Gross *875was let into the house by Mattie Smith, she fired two shots at the victim both of whiсh hit him in the neck. The victim fell to the floor. Mattie Smith went through the pockets of his shorts and told the victim that she was sorry it had to be him, but the sisters were lаte with their rent and were going to be evicted from their home. The victim was then wrapped in a blanket and dragged into a second room in the house. Although the victim was in shock, he remained conscious throughout the remainder of his ordeal. As time passed, the victim heard the vоices of Mattie Smith, defendant and the sisters’ mother in the house.
While he lay on the floor in the second room, the victim was shot a third time. He did nоt see who fired the gun. Sometime thereafter, he was shot a fourth time. This time when he looked up from the floor, he saw the defendant walk by thе door of the room in which he lay. Over a period of many hours, the sisters periodically came into the room where the victim was lying and checked him to see if he had passed out. Each time the victim pled with the sisters to take him to the hospital. Apparently, this went on fоr hours. At one point the victim pulled himself to his feet and ran to the sisters’ mother begging her to get help, but the sisters threatened to kill the victim and fоrced him back into the room. Finally, at some early hour in the morning, the sisters decided to take the victim out of the house. Mattie Smith tied the viсtim’s hands with cord, and the sisters attempted to carry him out to his truck. The victim, however, was too heavy so the sisters discussed the possibility of getting аnother man to help them. Gross, believing his only chance of survival was to get away from the house, encouraged the sisters to drag him outside the house, where he used his arms to help the sisters pull him into the passenger side of his truck. Defendant drove the truck for a long time while the viсtim, who lay on the floor of the truck with his hands tied, pled for his life. Eventually, defendant stopped the vehicle on a highway in Douglas County, and the sistеrs rolled the victim out of the truck and down an embankment. Mattie Smith walked down the hill and shot the victim two more times at close range. After the sistеrs drove off in the truck, the victim managed to pull himself up the embankment to the highway, where a passing truck driver noticed him and called an аmbulance.
Mattie Smith testified during trial that the victim had come to her house to provide her with cocaine, that he was hostile, and that shе “flipped out” and attacked him while she was under the influence of drugs. She further testified that defendant was not at home during the shootings and never held the gun or participated in the aggravated assault or armed robbery. She did admit, however, that defendant drove the truck and the viсtim to Douglas County. The victim testified that although he never saw defendant with a gun in her *876hand, there was no doubt in his mind that she was involved in the crimes that werе committed against him. During trial, most of the victim’s testimony was corroborated by physical evidence and the testimony by the sisters’ landlord.
1. Defendаnt first contends the trial court erred in not giving charges on lesser included offenses of the offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, specifically a charge on the offense of “pointing or aiming a gun or pistol at another” person.
Furthermore, “ [i]t is not error for the trial court to refuse to givе a lesser included offense charge when the evidence does not reasonably raise the issue. [Cit.]” Alvarado v. State, 194 Ga. App. 781, 782 (391 SE2d 668) (1990). In this case, the evidence adduced at trial does not support a charge on pointing or aiming a gun or pistol at another because neither the State nor the defense presented evidence that defendant, at any time, pointed or aimed a gun or pistol at the victim.
We also notе that defendant made no request for a charge on any specific crime as a lesser included offense of possession оf a firearm during the commission of a crime. The record reveals that defense counsel submitted a request to charge which provided: “Charge on lesser included offenses of (a) Armed Robbery, (b) Kidnapping, (c) Aggravated Assault and (d) Possession of a firearm. . . .” But defendant never specified what he contended those lesser included offenses to be. Failure to charge on a lesser included offense is never error absent a written request to do so. Emmett v. State, 199 Ga. App. 650 (2) (405 SE2d 707) (1991). Because defendant never made a written request to charge on the offense of “pointing or aiming a gun or pistol at another person,” the trial court did not err in failing to give such a charge. See French v. State, 199 Ga. App. 873, 874 (1) (406 SE2d 526) (1991).
2. Defendant next alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty of kidnapping and contends that, at the most, the evidence establishеs the crime of false imprisonment. “The essential difference between the two offenses is that kidnapping involves the additional element of asportation. See
Judgment affirmed.
Carley, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.