Opinion
34623, 34624.
SUBMITTED MARCH 13, 1979.
DECIDED APRIL 17, 1979. REHEARING DENIED MAY 2, 1979.
Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge McKenzie.
Leon Lamar, pro se (Case No. 34623).
R. Allen Hunt, Billy L. Spruell, Tommy Chason, for appellant (Case No. 34624).
Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Lamar appeals from his 1978 conviction and life sentence for the murder of Harry Phillip Glover on December 27, 1977. Appeal No. 34624 was filed by his attorney, and Appeal No. 34623 was filed pro se. In No. 34624 his attorney enumerated as error the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to convict, and the trial court's charge on reasonable doubt.
1. The evidence was ample to support the conviction for murder. This was not a circumstantial evidence case. Mary Adwater was an eyewitness to the killing, and the jury had a clear choice between believing her account of events involving an unprovoked killing or believing Lamar's testimony in his own behalf.
2. The charge given on reasonable doubt was not erroneous under Georgia law as alleged. Hudson v. State, 153 Ga. 695, 703 ( 113 S.E. 519) (1922). See Merritt v. State, 152 Ga. 405 (1) ( 110 S.E. 160) (1921); Marshall v. State, 129 Ga. App. 733, 734 ( 200 S.E.2d 902) (1973). Compare Chauncey v. State, 129 Ga. App. 207, 208 ( 199 S.E. 391) (1973) with Hunsinger v. State, 225 Ga. 426, 429 ( 169 S.E.2d 286) (1969).
3. In Appeal No. 34623, Lamar raises in numerous papers the following allegations of error: that the original enumeration of errors was prejudicial; that the district attorney behaved improperly in the course of questioning him about his mail order ordination as a minister in the Mother Earth Church; that the transcript is incomplete and shows deliberate tampering; that he had difficulty reaching the attorney assigned to handle his appeal; that unsworn testimony was allowed; that the prosecution committed perjury; and that he suffered "misrepresentation" of counsel.
We have considered these assertions. Lamar's briefs, and the transcript, and we find these claims of error to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment only.