Preview:

Final Copy 291 Ga. 148

S12A0677. SHARPE v. THE STATE. THOMPSON, Justice. Appellant Theodore Fred Sharpe was convicted of malice murder in connection with the deaths of Herman "Rusty" Cadle and Stillson "Larry" Lawrence and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.1 Appellant's amended motion for new trial was denied, and he now appeals that decision. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges trial court error in allowing an expert witness to express an opinion regarding an ultimate issue in the case, in excluding exculpatory evidence, in improperly charging the jury on the offense of arson, and in failing to give a complete charge on the form of the verdict. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The crimes occurred on June 9, 2008. A Richmond County grand jury returned an indictment charging appellant and Celisa Heard Hamilton with two counts of malice murder and two counts of felony murder while in the commission of arson. Appellant filed a motion to sever and was tried separately from Hamilton on October 27, 2008. On October 29, 2008, a jury found appellant guilty as charged. He was sentenced on November 12, 2008 to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for malice murder and the remaining counts of felony murder were vacated under Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (434 SE2d 479) (1993). Appellant filed a motion for new trial on November 13, 2008, which was amended on July 21, 2011, and denied on September 26, 2011. A notice of appeal was filed on September 28, 2011. The appeal was docketed to the April 2012 term of this Court and was submitted for a decision on briefs.

1

1. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Cadle and Lawrence died in a fire that swept through their residence while they slept on the night of June 9, 2008. Appellant, who lived with the victims, and Celisa Hamilton were seen arguing at the residence immediately before the fire. A witness heard Hamilton yell that she was going to kill somebody and saw appellant exit through the front door with a flashlight and walk over to an area on the side of the residence where law enforcement later discovered multiple gas cans. Appellant reentered the residence with something in his hand and then stood in the front doorway with Hamilton. The witness observed them "throw something" followed by the eruption of flames in the front portion of the house at which time appellant and Hamilton fled. Appellant later returned to the scene of the fire as firefighters were trying to revive one of the victims and commented that he was glad one of the victims was dead. A crime scene investigator and an arson investigation expert both concluded that an accelerant had been used, and the arson expert determined that the fire was intentionally set. Appellant contends that the actual cause of the arson was never determined and all of the evidence against him was circumstantial. Contrary to appellant's assertions, however, there was substantial evidence linking him to
2

the murders, and we conclude the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2. Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the medical examiner to characterize the manner of death for the two victims as homicides.2 He contends that this testimony constituted both an expression of opinion as to an ultimate issue in the case and an improper bolstering of the arson investigator's opinion. We disagree. Generally, witnesses are prohibited from expressing opinions on an ultimate issue where jurors can come to their own conclusion from factors within their understanding. Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 76 (414 SE2d 470) (1992), overruled on other grounds, Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506 (500 SE2d 904) (1998). However, "[i]n criminal cases, the opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade, or like questions shall always be admissible; and such

The medical examiner testified that both victims died as the result of smoke, soot, and super heated gas inhalation and further opined that both died as a result of a homicide. He explained, "[T]here are five manners of death. There's homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined and natural death. What I do is I try to determine which of those classifies for each death, in other words, cause of death and manner of death. . . . When I use manner of death . . . I use that in the medical sense for an autopsy report." Further clarifying, he stated, "I don't decide whether or not it's justifiable or not, but it's still a homicide." 3

2

opinions may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses." OCGA

Download S12A0677. SHARPE v. THE STATE.pdf

Georgia Law