Title: ALLANSON v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Case Number: 30352.
Date: Oct 28, 1975
Facts:
- Walter Thomas Allanson was indicted and convicted of the murders of his mother and father, receiving two life sentences to be served concurrently.
- Before the murders, the victims’ automobile had been shot at with a. 22-caliber weapon, and there was evidence suggesting Allanson’s involvement.
- The victims were shot at close range with a shotgun in their home, shortly after discovering the telephone lines to the house had been cut.
- Allanson’s mother was shot while descending the stairs with a rifle after her husband called for it from the basement. She screamed “Tommy, Tommy, Tommy” before being shot.
- The trial included evidence of Allanson’s demeanor upon hearing of his parent’s deaths, specifically his lack of tears.
- During the trial, improper remarks were made between counsel for the defendant and counsel for the state.
Issue:
- Admissibility of evidence regarding a prior incident involving the victims’ automobile being shot at, allegedly involving the defendant.
- Jury instruction regarding the statement “Tommy, Tommy, Tommy” made by the victim.
- The court’s charge regarding intent and presumption of malice in deadly weapons cases.
- Admission of testimony about the defendant’s lack of tears upon hearing of his parents’ deaths.
- Failure of the trial court to grant a mistrial due to improper remarks made between counsel.
- Refusal of the trial court to give the requested jury instructions regarding eyewitness testimony.
- Sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Decision:
- The court found the evidence of the prior incident admissible to show a previous difficulty between the defendant and the deceased, which is relevant in a murder trial.
- The court ruled that no specific cautionary instruction was necessary regarding the victim’s statement.
- The court determined that the charge regarding intent and presumption of malice was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
- The court found the admission of testimony about the defendant’s demeanor permissible.
- The court concluded that the failure to grant a mistrial was not a reversible error due to the lack of timely objection or request for specific instructions from the defendant’s counsel.
- The court upheld the trial court’s decision not to give requested instructions on eyewitness testimony, finding that the given charge adequately emphasized the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court affirmed the conviction, stating that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdict.
