Hendricks v. State

The evidence did not demand finding that the defendant was insane or that he suffered from any mental deficiency when he made a post-arrest inculpatory statement.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Reginald Hendricks was brought to trial before a jury on several charges, including malice murder. The State’s theory was that he, along with others, participated in a drug deal that ended in the shooting death of Andres Gomez Meza, who was the suspected dealer. The jury found him guilty but, on appeal, his convictions and sentences were reversed. Hendricks v. State , 277 Ga. 61 586 SE2d 317 2003. Hendricks was retried, and the jury found him guilty of felony murder while participating in a conspiracy to violate the Controlled Substances Act by trafficking in cocaine, the underlying conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, voluntary manslaughter, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the felony murder count, and to a consecutive five-year probated term for the weapons offense. See Smith v. State , 272 Ga. 874, 880-881 6 b, c 536 SE2d 514 2000 where there is single homicide victim and predicate felony is independent of killing, verdicts of guilty of felony murder and voluntary manslaughter not mutually exclusive, but only conviction and sentence for felony murder is authorized. Hendricks appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences imposed after the retrial. 1. When construed most strongly in support of the jury’s verdicts, the evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof of Hendricks’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder and of possessing a firearm during commission of that offense. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Hendricks v. State , supra at 61 1.

2. Hendricks urges that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his post-arrest statement, in which he admitted that he was in the backseat of the victim’s car when the fatal shooting occurred. He contends that the statement is inadmissible due to his mental incompetency at the time that he made it.

Hendricks v. State

The evidence did not demand finding that the defendant was insane or that he suffered from any mental deficiency when he made a post-arrest inculpatory statement.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report