Flournoy v. State
Flournoy v. State
Opinion of the Court
After a jury trial, Emory Flournoy was found guilty of one count of felony murder and four counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life for the murder and to four twenty-year terms for the assaults. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.
1. Construing the evidence most favorably for the State and most strongly against Flournoy shows the following: After one of his companions had flagged down a jeep and exchanged words with the driver, Flournoy began firing a semi-automatic pistol. The driver of the jeep pulled away and the passengers ducked as they heard seven or eight shots and felt broken glass. A bullet struck one of the passengers in the back and he died shortly thereafter. Three of the surviving passengers identified Flournoy as the perpetrator, as did Flournoy’s companion who had flagged down the jeep. Based upon this evidence, a rational trier of fact was authorized to find proof of Flournoy’s guilt of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Flournoy urges that certain evidence was subject to a “continuing witness” objection and was erroneously allowed to go out with the jury. See Tibbs v. Tibbs, 257 Ga. 370 (359 SE2d 674) (1987). The record shows, however, that Flournoy raised no “continuing witness” objection either when the evidence was introduced or when it was in-
Judgments affirmed.
The crimes were committed on June 24,1994 and Flournoy was indicted on August 16, 1994. The guilty verdicts were returned on March 14,1995 and, on March 17, 1995, the judgments of conviction and sentences were entered thereon. The motion for new trial was filed on April 10,1995 and was denied on August 8,1995. The notice of appeal was filed on August 23, 1995 and the case was docketed in this Court on October 26, 1995. The appeal was submitted for decision on December 18, 1995.
Concurring Opinion
concurring.
I concur in the judgment, but write separately because I disagree with the Court of Appeals cases that exempt the photographic line-up forms from the continuing witness objection.
Georgia courts allow litigants to object to a written statement as a “continuing witness” to avoid placing undue emphasis on written testimony.
Like the written testimony we have previously found subject to the continuing witness objection, the photographic identification forms introduced in this case are documentary evidence that rely on the maker’s credibility for their value. The witnesses signed a statement that “positively identified photo #5 as being the person who
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears joins in this concurrence.
See Samples v. State, 217 Ga. App. 509, 510 (460 SE2d 795) (1995); Parks v. State, 199 Ga. App. 736, 738-739 (406 SE2d 229) (1991); Kenney v. State, 196 Ga. App. 776, 777 (397 SE2d 131) (1990).
Tibbs v. Tibbs, 257 Ga. 370, 370-371 (359 SE2d 674) (1987).
Shedden v. Stiles, 121 Ga. 637, 640 (49 SE 719) (1905).
Thomason v. Genuine Parts Co., 156 Ga. App. 599, 601 (275 SE2d 159) (1980).
Shedden, 121 Ga. at 639-640.
Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452, 460-462 (145 SE 879) (1928).
Royals v. State, 208 Ga. 78, 81 (65 SE2d 158) (1951) (quoting People v. Spranger, 145 NE 706, 710 (Ill. 1924)).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Flournoy v. the State
- Cited By
- 21 cases
- Status
- Published