Smith v. State

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's objection to the eyewitness's testimony that she did not believe the defendant acted in self-defense, since the witness testified based on her own observations of the shooting.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Umar Smith was indicted for several offenses arising from the fatal shooting of Kenyon Maddox. Smith did not deny that he shot the victim, but claimed that he acted in self-defense. However, a jury found him guilty of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault. Because the guilty verdict as to felony murder was vacated by operation of law and the aggravated assault merged as a matter of fact, the trial court entered judgment of conviction only for malice murder and then imposed a life sentence. Malcolm v. State , 263 Ga. 369, 372 4, 5 434 SE2d 479 1993. With regard to a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which had been bifurcated for separate disposition, Smith pled guilty and received a five-year consecutive sentence. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Smith appeals.1 1. Smith does not enumerate the general grounds. However, an independent review of the transcript shows that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony identifying Smith as the aggressor, is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Russell v. State , 267 Ga. 865, 866 1 485 SE2d 717 1997.

2. On direct examination, an eyewitness testifying for the State was asked whether, based on her observations, she believed that Smith acted in self-defense. Smith objected that the question called for a legal conclusion. The trial court overruled the objection, and the witness gave a negative response to the question. Smith enumerates the trial court’s ruling as error.

Smith v. State

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's objection to the eyewitness's testimony that she did not believe the defendant acted in self-defense, since the witness testified based on her own observations of the shooting.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report