Reese v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror who testified that he "probably would" pay attention to inadmissible evidence, even if instructed to ignore it.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Joe Clayton Reese appeals from a conviction for voluntary manslaughter on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in its handling of the jury. We find no error and therefore affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence showed that Reese became involved in an altercation between his father and mother. When his father began throwing rocks at the family chickens, Reese made him stop by holding him in a headlock and by the nose. Reese then went into the house, where his mother was. Reese’s brother arrived, becoming angry when he learned of the altercation between Reese and their father, and said that he had warned Reese that if he ever touched their father, he would kill him. Reese, who now had a rifle, replied, “I didn’t hurt him. I just put him in a headlock. I promise you.” Both the mother and a stepbrother tried to calm Reese’s brother, but he started up the front porch steps towards Reese. The mother backed Reese into a corner of the porch and moved towards the brother, who knocked her aside. Reese shot his brother eight times; he died minutes later. Reese was charged with murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. He was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He now appeals on three grounds: that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court improperly dismissed a juror, and that an instruction on self-defense was improperly given.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence. Williams v. State , 261 Ga. App. 793, 794 1 584 SE2d 64 2003. We neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Reese v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror who testified that he "probably would" pay attention to inadmissible evidence, even if instructed to ignore it.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report