From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Logue v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Nov 2, 1983
308 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 1983)

Opinion

40226.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 2, 1983.

Voluntary manslaughter; constitutional question. Toombs Superior Court. Before Judge O'Connor, Senior Judge.

Larsen Larsen, W. Washington Larsen, Jr., for appellant.

Beverly B. Hayes, Jr., District Attorney, H. Jeff Lanier, William T. McBroom III, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.


Alonzo Logue was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for shooting and killing another with a handgun. Included in his enumerations of error is a constitutional challenge to the voluntary manslaughter statute.

This case twice was tried and twice reversed. Logue v. State, 149 Ga. App. 797 ( 256 S.E.2d 31) (1979); Logue v. State, 155 Ga. App. 476 ( 271 S.E.2d 42) (1980). This appeal is from Logue's third conviction of voluntary manslaughter. The facts are essentially the same as those set out in 149 Ga. App. 797.

1. Logue's contention that the voluntary manslaughter statute is unconstitutionally vague is without merit.

"A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. ..." OCGA § 16-5-2 (a) (Code Ann. § 26-1102). The words "sudden, violent and irresistible passion" and "serious provocation" are capable of common understanding. McCord v. State, 248 Ga. 765 ( 285 S.E.2d 724) (1982).

2. Logue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After reviewing the facts of this case, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Logue guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.C. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).

3. Logue contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The record shows that Logue was arrested on December 19, 1976 and indicted two months later for murder. The first trial took place in November 1977, and the second trial in August 1979. The third trial was postponed by a change of venue and then conducted in November 1981. Continuances were requested and granted to both sides. This contention is without merit. See Washington v. State, 243 Ga. 329 (1) ( 253 S.E.2d 719) (1979).

4. The trial court did not err in failing to define the words "serious provocation" as a part of its charge on voluntary manslaughter, as that term can be understood in its ordinary meaning.

5. Logue contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial where the alternate juror remained in the jury room during initial deliberations.

At the close of the evidence, the alternate juror erroneously entered the jury room and remained approximately forty minutes during deliberations before he was removed. Upon examination of all of the jurors, the trial court found that no formal discussions had ensued and no vote had been taken. The jurors stated that the alternate juror's presence in no way influenced their decision. We find no error. See Johnson v. State, 235 Ga. 486 (6) ( 220 S.E.2d 448) (1975).

6. The trial court did not err in denying Logue's motion for a polygraph examination where the state would not stipulate as to the admissibility of such tests. See State v. Chambers, 240 Ga. 76 ( 239 S.E.2d 324) (1977). Further, no foundation for admissibility was laid, as discussed in Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 ( 292 S.E.2d 389) (1982).

7. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 2, 1983.


Summaries of

Logue v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Nov 2, 1983
308 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 1983)
Case details for

Logue v. State

Case Details

Full title:LOGUE v. THE STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Nov 2, 1983

Citations

308 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 1983)
308 S.E.2d 189

Citing Cases

Stephens v. State

We find that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence presented at trial that…

Hull v. State

Further, we hold that the term "conduct" is a term of ordinary meaning and the trial court did not need to…