Riggins v. State

The evidence did not support a charge on voluntary manslaughter since words alone cannot constitute the serious provocation which will reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Clarence Riggins appeals from his conviction of felony murder, with aggravated assault as the underlying felony, arising from the shooting death of Michael Copeland.1 Testimony at trial established that after telling friends that he had been robbed and knew who had done it, Riggins got a ride first to his apartment, where he went inside for a few minutes, then to the area from which he had gotten the ride. Leon Jones, an 11-year-old boy who was acquainted with both Riggins and Copeland, testified he saw Riggins engage in an argument with Copeland, then shoot at Copeland three times as Copeland walked away. Copeland was hit with two shots, one of which hit his head and was fatal. A cousin of Riggins testified that on the day after the shooting, Riggins told him he shot Copeland because Copeland “cussed” him. 1. The evidence adduced at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Riggins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder with aggravated assault as the underlying felony. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Curles v. State , 276 Ga. 237 575 SE2d 891 2003.

2. In his only enumeration of error, Riggins contends he is entitled to a new trial because he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. “In order to prevail on his claim, appellant must show deficient performance on the part of counsel and prejudice to his defense resulting from the deficient performance. Cit.” Fulton v. State , 278 Ga. 58 8 597 SE2d 396 2004. Riggins cites two instances of purported deficient performance that prejudiced him: failure to request a charge on voluntary manslaughter and failure effectively to impeach the eyewitness, Jones.

Riggins v. State

The evidence did not support a charge on voluntary manslaughter since words alone cannot constitute the serious provocation which will reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report