Jackson v. State

Defense counsel's failure to object to the charge on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Elton Erwin Jackson appeals his convictions stemming from the death of Anwar Harris on March 22, 2005.1 For the reasons set forth below, his convictions are affirmed. 1. Appellant alleges the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Construed most strongly in favor of the verdict, the evidence adduced at trial established the following. On March 22, 2005, Anwar Harris, his girlfriend, and infant child were leaving the leasing offices of an apartment complex in Gwinnett County when appellant, who was known by the nickname “June,” approached and shot Harris five times. Appellant ran up a hill and was seen climbing into the passenger seat of a waiting dark-colored pick-up truck which drove away. The victim’s girlfriend, a mailman, and the apartment leasing agent all identified appellant as the shooter. The medical examiner testified that the victim died from gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and chest. At trial, there was evidence that sometime prior to his death, the victim burglarized appellant’s home and stole approximately $50,000. There was also evidence that, weeks prior to the shooting, the victim and appellant had a quarrel over money.

The relevant inquiry on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, would authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he is charged. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S 307, 319 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Given the fact that three eyewitnesses identified appellant as the shooter, the evidence was sufficient such that a jury was authorized to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes for which he was charged.

Jackson v. State

Defense counsel's failure to object to the charge on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report