THI RD DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, and M C M I LLI A N, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 8, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A1 56 0 . TRUONG v

. THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

Aft er a ju ry t ri al

, An t h o n y T ru o n g was co n v i ct ed o f r o b b ery , fal s e

i m p ri s o n m e n t

, b a tt ery , an d th eft b y t ak i n g

. Tru on g ap p eal s , ch al l en g i n g t h e

s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt i n g t h e ro b bery an d fal s e i m p ri s o nm en t ch arg es ,

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s refu sal t o ex cu s e a pro s p ect iv e j u ro r fo r cau s e, an d t h e t ri al c o u r t ’s

ju ry ch arg e o n p art ies t o a c r i m e. Bu t

, t h ere was s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch a

rat i o nal t ri er o f fact was au t ho ri zed t o fi n d Tru o n g g u il t y b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

o f ro b b ery an d fal s e i m

p ri so n m en t

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d no t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n i n

refu s i n g t o ex cu s e t h e ju ro r fo r cau s e, an d an y pres u m ed erro r i n g i v in g a ju ry

i n s t ru ct i o n o n p art i es t o a cri m e was h arm l es s . Th erefo re, we affi rm

.

1

. S u f f ici en cy o f t h e evi d en ce.Tru o n g cl ai m s t h at t h ere was i n s u ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up p o rt h i s co n v i ct i on s

fo r ro bb ery

an d fal se i m

p ri s o n m en t . Th e cl ai m

i s wi t h o u t m eri t

.

W h en rev iewi n g a d efen d an t ’ s ch al l en ge t o th e s u ffi ci en cy o f th e

ev i d en ce, we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g ht m o s t fav o rab l e to t he j u ry ’ s

v erd i ct

, an d t h e d efen d an t n o l o n g er en jo y s t he p res um

p t i on o f

i n n o cen ce. W e d o no t wei g h th e ev i d en ce o r d et erm i n e wi t n es s cred ib i l i t y , b u t o n ly d et erm i n e i f t h e ev i d en ce w as s u ffi ci en t fo r a

rat i o n al t ri er o f fact t o fi n d t h e d efen d an t g u i l t y o f t h e ch arg ed offen s e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t

.

Ki l b y v. S t a t e , 2 8 9 G a. Ap p

. 4 57 (1 ) (6 5 7 SE2 d 5 6 7 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ).

So v iewed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws t h at o n M arch 2

, 2 0 1 4

, Tru o n g ’ s m ot h er, Su s an

St o k es , i n v i t ed t h e v i ct i m t o h er h o u s e. T h e vi ct i m d ro v e hi s car t o St o k es ’ h o u s e,

wh ere h e b eg an d ri n ki ng b eer wi t h St o k es

. As t h ey d ran k

, t h e vi ct im di s co vered t h at

St o k es h ad s l i p p ed pi l l s i n t o hi s d ri n ks

. A s h o rt t i m e l a t e r , T ru o n g at tack ed t h e

v i ct i m , p u n ch in g h i m i n t h e face an d k n o ck i n g h im t o t h e gro u n d

. As Tru o n g p i n n ed

t h e v i c t i m t o t h e g ro u n d

, h e t o o k t h e v i ct i m ’ s k ey s , wal l et

, an d p h o n e fro m hi s

p o ck et s

. Tru o n g t h en fo rced t h e v i ct i m i n t o a s l eep i n g b ag o n t h e g ro un d an d o rd ered

h i m n ot t o l eav e o r cal l th e p o l i ce, t h reat en i n g fu rt h er v i o len ce if t h e v i c t i m

d i s o b ey ed

. Tru o n g l eft t h e ho u s e, wh i l e St o k es an d an o t h er m an s t ay ed i n t h e s am e

ro o m wh ere t h e v i ct i m was in t he s l eep i n g b ag o n t h e fl o o r. W h en St o k es an d t h e m an

wen t t o a d i fferen t p art o f t he h o u s e, t h e v i ct i m es cap ed . He d i s co vered t h at h i s car

2was m i s s i n g an d l at er fo u n d t h a t v a r i o u s it em s were m is s i n g fro m h i s h o u s e. Th e

v i ct i m rep o rt ed t h e i nci d en t to t h e p o l i ce, wh o ex ecu t ed a s earch warran t at St o k es ’

h o u s e , w h ere t h ey fo u nd t h e v i ct i m ’ s wal l et

, k ey s , an d GPS d ev i ce h id d en i n a

h am p er i n Tru on g ’ s b ed ro o m

.

“ W h en v i ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct s , t he ev i d en ce

p res en t ed at tri al an d su m m ari zed ab o v e was su ffi ci en t t o au t h o ri ze a rat i o n al ju ry to

fi nd [Tru o n g ] g ui l t y b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t of t h e cr i m e s [ o f ro b bery an d fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t ] fo r wh i ch h e was fo u n d g u i l t y . [Ci t s.] ” Ken n eb r ew v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga.

8 6 4 , 8 6 7 (1 ) (7 9 2 SE2 d 6 95 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

2

. Ref u s al t o excu s e p r o sp ect i ve j ur o r.

Tru o n g en u m erat es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt e r r e d i n fai l i n g t o ex cu s e fo r cau s e a

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r wh o h ad m ad e cam pai g n co n t r i b u ti o n s to t h e co u n t y s heri ff. He

arg u es t h at t hi s cas e i s s i m i l ar t o an d co n t ro ll ed b y P o s t v

. S t a te

, 2 9 8 Ga. 2 4 1 (7 7 9

SE2 d 6 2 4 ) (2 0 1 5). Ho wev er, Tru o n g ’ s rel i an ce o n Po s t i s m i s p laced as t h at cas e d id

n o t i n vo l v e th e i s su e o f ex cu s i ng a j u ro r fo r cau s e, b u t i n s t ead i n v o l v ed recu s al o f a

ju d g e. See i d

. Th e l aw go v ern i n g th e i s su e o f ex cu s i n g a j u r o r fo r cau se i s wel l

s et t l ed

.

3W h et h er t o st ri k e a ju ro r fo r cau s e l i es wi t h i n t h e s ou n d d i scret i o n

o f t h e t ri al co u rt . Fo r a ju ro r t o b e ex cu s ed fo r cau s e, i t m u s t b e s ho wn

t h at h e o r sh e h o l d s an op i n i o n o f t h e g u il t o r in n o cen ce o f t he d efen d an t

t h at i s s o f

i x e d a n d d e fi n i t e t h at th e ju ro r wi l l b e u n ab l e t o s et th e

o p i n i o n as i d e an d deci d e t h e cas e b as ed u p on t h e ev i d en ce or t h e co u rt ’ s ch arg e u p o n th e ev id en ce. A p ro s p ect i v e ju ro r’ s d o u bt as to hi s o r h er

o wn i m p art i al i t y d o es n o t d em an d as a m at t e r o f l a w t hat he o r s h e be

ex cu s ed f

o r cau s e. N or i s ex cu s al req u i red w h en a p ot en t i al ju ro r

ex p res s es res erv at i o ns ab o u t h i s o r h er a b i l i t y t o p u t as i d e p ers o nal

ex p eri en ces

. A co n cl u s i o n o n an i s s ue o f b i a s i s bas ed o n fi n d i n gs o f

d em ean o r an d cred i b i l it y wh i ch are pecu l i arl y i n t he t ri al co u rt ’ s

p ro v i n ce, an d th o s e fi n d i n g s are t o b e g i v en d eferen ce.

Br i t t ia n v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 70 6

, 7 0 8 (3 ) (7 9 1 SE2 d 8 10 ) (2 01 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

In t h i s cas e, t here i s n o s ho wi n g t h at t h e p ro sp ect i v e ju ro r h el d an y o p i n i o n o f

Tru o n g ’ s g u il t o r in n o cen ce, l et al o n e an o p i n i o n t h at was s o fi x ed o r d efi n i t e t h at h e

was u nab l e t o s et i t as i d e an d d eci d e t h e cas e b as ed o n t h e ev id en ce an d t h e co urt ’ s

ch arg e. On t h e co n trary

, wh en q u es t io n ed b y d efen s e co u n s el d u ri n g v o i r d i re ab o ut

t h e effect h i s rel at i o n s h i p wi t h t h e s h eri ff m i g h t h a v e o n hi s i m p art i al i ty

, t h e ju ro r

res p o n d ed

, “ I do n ’ t t h i nk i t wo ul d hav e an y effect wh at s oev er.” Becau se t h e ju ro r’ s

“ res p o n s e to t h e [d efen s e co u n sel ’ s ] q u es t i o ns d em o n s t rat ed t h at [h e] co u ld s et as i d e

[an y ] o p i ni o n an d co ul d d eci d e t h e cas e o n t h e ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e

4i t s d i s cret i o n i n d en y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o ex cu s e fo r cau s e.” Ru cker v. St a t e , 2 7 0 Ga.

4 3 1 , 4 3 3 (2 ) (5 1 0 SE2 d 8 16 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ).

3

. Ju r y ch a r g e o n p a rt i es t o a cr i me.

Tru o n g co m

p l ai n s t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g i vi n g a ju ry ch arg e on p art i es

t o a cri m e b ecau se t h ere was n o ev id en ce t hat an y o n e el s e h ad an y t h i n g t o d o wi t h t h e

cri m es al l eg ed

. Bu t “ [e] v en i f [we p res um e t h at ] t h e ch arg e h ere was erro r, i t wo u ld

b e h arm l es s i n l i gh t o f t h e st ro n g ev i d en ce ag ai n s t [Tru o n g ] .” Ro ch a v. S t a te

, 2 3 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 4 8

, 5 3 (4 ) (5 0 6 SE2 d 19 2 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (ci tat i on an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ). See al s o

Lewi s v. S t a t e , 19 5 Ga. Ap p

. 5 9

, 6 0 (2 ) (3 9 2 SE2 d 5 6 3 ) (1 9 9 0 ) (erro r i n g i v in g p art i es

t o a cri m e ch arg e was h arm l es s d u e t o s t ro n g ev i d en ce o f d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

McMi l l i a n , J., co n cu r.

5