Atlanta Domestic Violence

NEW CASE just published

Bell v. State, A11A0118 (July 5, 2011).

Following his 2005 conviction for rape, defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial.

During voir dire, the panel member stated that he had heard of a person named James Bell who was accused of a previous sexual assault in another county, and asked if it was the same person because the victim in that assault was his grandmother.

The State responded: “Your grandmother is [name omitted]?” To which the juror responded: “My grandmother is Ardella [name omitted].”

When questioned if he knew James Bell, the juror responded that he did not, but wondered if it was the same person.

The State then responded: “I can’t go into the past. That’s what the judge was getting at and that’s what I’m getting at. We can’t talk about what happened in the past, just talking about today.

The juror was then asked whether his relationship with his grandmother would affect his ability to be fair and impartial, he responded that “I would hope so. I guess I could because I don’t know James Bell. I can’t say that I know him.”

Defense counsel requested to approach and moved for a mistrial.

Although the motion for mistrial was premature – the proper procedural tool for the defense to have used was either a “challenge to the poll” or a motion for a postponement to impanel other jurors who had not heard the remark. However, regardless of the label which defense counsel placed on his motion, his import was clear, i.e., that the prospective jurors had been prejudiced by the remarks and that the appellant was entitled to a new panel from which to choose a jury to hear his case.

The law in Georgia provides “[w]hen a prejudicial matter is improperly placed before the jury, a mistrial is appropriate if it is essential to the preservation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

Due process requires “a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen.”

Here, although the prospective juror at issue said he was not sure if the defendant was the same James Bell accused of raping of his grandmother, rather than leave the questioned unanswered, and move on to another juror, the State elicited more information from the juror. Specifically, the State asked if the juror’s grandmother was ” [name omitted]” thereby providing the other prospective jurors with the name of another alleged rape victim in a crime for which Bell was not on trial.

This comment by the state was inherently prejudicial and deprived Bell of his right to begin his trial with a jury free from even a suspicion of prejudgment or fixed opinion.

Because the trial was tainted from the beginning, Bell’s conviction was reversed.

Since the seminal 2008 case of Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696, 701-702 (1) (670 SE2d 73) (2008), the courts have held the prosecutors must prove the asportation element of kidnapping. The Courts will look at four factors to determine the sufficiency of the evidence of asportation in kidnapping cases. Those four factors are: (1) the duration of the movement; (2) whether the movement occurred during the commission of a separate offense; (3) whether such movement was an inherent part of that separate offense; and (4) whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense.

July 1, 2011, the Court of Appeals released THOMAS v. THE STATE, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 591. Chris Thomas was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, armed robbery, four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of aggravated battery. Davis, the victim, testified he had just finished a live broadcast at his radio station when someone came up from behind and put an arm around his neck, placing him in a “death” choke. Davis said at first he thought someone was playing a joke, and he said “I give up, you win.” Davis testified that as he remained in the choke hold, a third person threw bleach into his eyes; however, because of the angle from which it was thrown, he was blinded only in his right eye. At that point, he started to fight back. He planted his feet and shot straight back at the person who had him in the choke hold and a struggle ensued. As he continued to struggle on the floor, one of the assailants tried to get duct tape around his eyes. As the struggle continued, he and his assailants moved about seven to ten feet across the floor and just slightly outside of the studio room before he was subdued and taken back into the studio room and then tortured.
The Court held the movement was of short or minimal duration, clearly occurring during the course and incidental to the assaults. Although the State argued that the danger to Davis was increased by this movement since it took him out of view if someone might have happened to look into the window located in the studio room, the argument ignored the fact Davis was moved back into that room as soon as he was subdued. The movement was not to “substantially isolate” Davis from protection or rescue, but was merely a “criminologically insignificant circumstance” attendant to the assaults being committed against him.
Thus, the State could not make out the asportation element. The case was reversed and remanded.