Strickland v. State, 257 Ga. 230

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed Robert Strickland Jr.'s murder conviction for errors in jury instructions concerning the relevance of the victim's alleged adulterous conduct to voluntary manslaughter and in excluding evidence concerning threats against the defendant. The court found no harmful error in the exclusion of evidence regarding a witness's pending theft charge or in the psychiatric examination procedures. Several justices dissented, concluding that any instructional error was cured by the complete voluntary-manslaughter charge.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Strickland guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury's rejection of his insanity defense satisfied the applicable standard of review.
2. It was reversible error to instruct the jury that whether the victim had sexual relations with another person was irrelevant, because the victim's alleged adulterous conduct was relevant and critical to Strickland's claim that he was entitled to a voluntary-manslaughter verdict.
3. The trial court erred by excluding testimony about a death threat allegedly made by a member of Brewer's family because the testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the threat but to support Strickland's credibility concerning why he purchased the gun.
4. The trial court did not commit harmful error by excluding evidence of Brewer's pending theft charge because Strickland did not offer the evidence at trial to show the witness's interest in cooperating with the State, and the evidence was otherwise sought for improper impeachment.
5. Requiring Strickland to submit to the State's psychiatric examination, subject to striking his insanity expert testimony if he refused, did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
6. The defendant did not preserve an objection concerning compliance with OCGA § 17-7-130, and the court found no harmful error; on retrial, however, the statute requires appointment of an independent psychiatrist or licensed psychologist upon notice that the defendant will pursue an insanity defense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and rejection of the insanity defense.
2. Whether the trial court's instruction that the victim's sexual relations with others were irrelevant improperly prevented the jury from considering voluntary manslaughter based on provocation.
3. Whether the trial court improperly excluded testimony about threats made by members of Brewer's family when the testimony was offered to explain Strickland's reason for purchasing the gun.
4. Whether the trial court improperly limited cross-examination concerning a pending theft charge against the State's witness.
5. Whether ordering Strickland to submit to a psychiatric examination and permitting the examining psychiatrist to testify violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
6. Whether the trial court complied with OCGA § 17-7-130 concerning expert testimony on insanity.

Disposition

reversed