Hance v. State

126 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ramseur

    106 N.J. 123 (N.J. 1987)   Cited 704 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding death penalty statute constitutional under United States and New Jersey Constitutions

    Interpretations by various courts throughout the nation give effect to this limitation, ultimately by construing the entire provision in a manner that results in the second portion being the essential finding. See Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856, 268 S.E.2d 339, cert. den., 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 611 (1980); Turner v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 513, 273 S.E.2d 36, 44-45 (1980), cert. den., 451 U.S. 1011, 101 S.Ct. 2347,68 L.Ed.2d 863 (1981). In effect, although these courts do require two independent findings (that the offense (1) is "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman," and (2) involves torture, depravity or aggravated battery), in applying the construction, the first part of the provision is rendered nugatory.

  2. Hance v. State

    254 Ga. 575 (Ga. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Affirming death sentence; prosecutor's statement to jurors that "they would not be responsible for [the defendant's] execution" did not diminish the jury's sense of responsibility or deny the defendant fundamental fairness

    The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067 (1980). After exhausting his state habeas remedies, Hance filed a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia which was denied.

  3. Wellons v. State

    266 Ga. 77 (Ga. 1995)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a crime scene video was admissible where it was "relevant to show the location of the body in relation to various evidence and to the scene of the murder, the extent to which [defendant] had concealed the body from view, and the relationship of various items of evidence"

    This clearly constitutes torture. See Hill v. State, 246 Ga. 402, 409-410 ( 271 S.E.2d 802) (1980); Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856, 861 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). 9.

  4. Hall v. State

    261 Ga. 778 (Ga. 1991)   Cited 37 times
    Recognizing that witnessing a violent crime can cause a child โ€œcruel and excessive mental painโ€

    These are words of common understanding having essentially the same meaning and are intended to help distinguish non-capital murders from those in which a death sentence may be appropriate. Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856, 861 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). Second, the offense of murder must involve either torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim (or a combination of these three elements).

  5. Conner v. State

    251 Ga. 113 (Ga. 1983)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "counsel should not go outside the facts appearing in the case" (citation and punctuation omitted)

    "Torture occurs when the victim is subjected to serious physical abuse before death." Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856, 861 (3) ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). "An aggravated battery occurs when `[a] person . . . maliciously causes bodily harm to another by . . . seriously disfiguring his body or a member thereof.' [OCGA ยง 16-5-24 (a) (Code Ann. ยง 26-1305)]."

  6. Williams v. State

    250 Ga. 553 (Ga. 1983)   Cited 35 times
    In Williams v. State, 250 Ga. 553, 300 S.E.2d 301 (1983), the defendant raised the identical issue presented in this case, i.e. that he was entitled to an Enmund instruction.

    See Gilreath v. State, supra, 247 Ga. at 836. As can be seen, the evidence is sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find torture or aggravated battery as well as depravity of mind.Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 (3) ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). Defendant points out that the jury was charged incorrectly in the following language: "In that it involved torture and depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery."

  7. Krier v. State

    249 Ga. 80 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 21 times

    Notwithstanding the minor inconsistency referred to above, the evidence presented to the issuing magistrate was such as would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that appellant had committed the offense. Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). 2.

  8. Godfrey v. State

    248 Ga. 616 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that where the Supreme Court had reversed defendant's death penalty sentence on the grounds it was a standardless and unchannelled imposition, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude reimposition of death penalty on remand because the reversal was for trial error, not insufficiency of the evidence

    Id. at 428. See Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980); Cape v. State, 246 Ga. 520 ( 272 S.E.2d 487) (1980). The prosecution in the original case against the appellant proved beyond a reasonable doubt facts sufficient to support a sentence of death upon a finding of an aggravating circumstance under Code Ann. ยง 27-2534.

  9. Stevens v. State

    247 Ga. 698 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 74 times

    The defendant having chosen to waive his rights (and there being no misconduct on the part of the investigating officers), the trial court did not err in admitting these statements. Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 (2) ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980). 8.

  10. High v. State

    247 Ga. 289 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 44 times

    The appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the sentence of death in that under the Georgia statute as applied, there is a substantial risk that the death penalty will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This argument has been raised before and decided adversely to the appellant's position. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 ( 96 S.C. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859) (1976); Hance v. State, 245 Ga. 856 ( 268 S.E.2d 339) (1980); Cape v. State, 246 Ga. 520 ( 272 S.E.2d 487) (1980). 12.