FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, M C M I LLI A N and M ERCI ER, JJ.

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

Januar y 19, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A1 58 0 . J O RDAN v . THE STATE.

A1 7 A1 58 1 . J O RDAN v . THE STATE.

M C M ILLI A N , J u dg e.

Ap p el l an t s Ro d eri ck J o rd an a n d Den n i s Al o n zo Jo rd an 1 were t ri ed t o g et h er

b efo re a j u ry an d co n v i ct ed o f arm ed ro b b ery

. Ap p el lan t s fi l ed s ep arat e m o t i o n s fo r

n ew t ri al

, wh i ch th e t ri al co u rt den i ed fo l lo wi n g a h eari ng

. Th ey ap peal an d arg u e t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt ab u sed i t s d i s cret i o n i n d en y i n g t h ei r req u es t fo r a p o s t p o n em en t o f t h e

t ri al aft er b en ch warran t s were i s s u ed i n th e p res en ce o f th e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs

.

Ro d eri ck al s o co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y refu s i n g t o al lo w h im t o recal l t h e

v i ct i m t o t es t i fy aft er h e was cro s s -ex am i n ed by ap p el l an ts

. Den ni s ch al l en g es t h e

s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i den ce t o co n v i ct h i m an d as s ert s t h at t he tri al co ur t erred by

1 Ro d eri ck an d Den n i s are b ro t h ers an d wi l l be referred t o by t hei r fi rs t n am es

fo r eas e o f referen ce.al l o wi n g t h e St at e t o i n t ro d u ce h i s p ri o r co n v i ct io ns an d i n ch arg i n g t he ju ry o n t h e

co n si d erat io n of t h i s ev i den ce. Hav i ng co ns i d ered t h es e co n t en ti o n s

, we n o w affi rm

.

Co n s t r u e d t o s u p p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, 2 t h e ev i den ce s h o ws t h at t h e v i ct i m

,

was i n h i s ap art m en t o n t h e m o rn in g o f O ct o ber 2 4 , 2 0 12 . He h eard a k n o ck o n t h e

d o o r an d s aw Den n i s J o rd an

, wh o m t h e v i ct i m kn ew as “ Ik e,” st an d i n g at h i s d o o r.

Th e v ict i m

l et Den n is i n to h i s ap art m en t an d cl o s ed b u t d i d n o t l o ck h i s d oo r.

As t h e v i ct i m an d Den ni s were s tan d i n g i n t h e l i v i n g ro o m tal k i n g

, 3 a m an

weari n g a m as k p art i al l y co v eri n g h i s face s u dd en l y p u s h ed o p en t he d o or an d ru s h ed

i n

. Th e v i ct i m al s o reco gn i ze d t h i s m an an d i d en t i fi ed h i m as Den n i s ’ b ro t h er

Ro d eri ck

, w h o m t h e v ict i m k n ew as “ Pi e.” Ro d eri c k p u l l ed o u t a k n i fe an d p u s h ed

t h e v i ct i m

t o t h e fl o o r an d h el d h im d o wn wh i l e t ak i n g m o n ey o ut o f h i s wal l et an d

fro n t p o ck et

. Ro deri ck t h en ju m p ed o ff th e vi ct i m

, b ran di sh ed a h am m er, an d wal k ed

i n t o t h e k i t ch en an d t o o k an en v el o p e co n t ai n in g $ 3 0 0 o ff t he t ab l e. Th e m en t h en l eft

t h e ap art m en t t og et h er. Th e v i c t i m t es t i fi ed th at al th o u g h Den n i s ju s t s t o o d i n t h e

2 Ja cks o n v. Vi r

gi n i a , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

3 Th e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at Den n i s h ad b een i n hi s a p art m en t ab o u t 1 0 o r 1 5

m i n u t es b efo re t h e o t h er m an b u rs t i n

.

2l i vi n g ro o m an d d i d n o t act i v el y p art i ci p at e i n t h e r o b b ery

, Ro d eri ck as k ed Den n i s

s ev eral t im es “ Are y o u s u re y o u d i d n ’ t t el l h i m wh o I was ? ”

T he v ict im cal l ed p o l ice, an d t h e cri m e was i n v es t i g at ed b y an i nv es t i g at o r with

t h e Th om as t o n Po l i ce Dep art m en t

. Th e i n ves t i g at o r i n t e r v i ewed a n ei g h bo r, wh o s ai d

h e s aw two m en

, fi t t i n g t h e h ei gh t an d wei g ht d es cri p t i o n s of ap p el lan t s

, d ri v e u p in

a b ei g e o r ch am

p ag n e c o l o r ed Ch ev ro l et an d p ark acro s s t h e s t reet fro m t h e

ap art m en t

. 4 He o b s erv ed o n e o f t h e m en g et ou t o f t h e v eh i cl e an d w al k aro u n d t o t h e

b a c k o f t h e a p art m en t b u i l di ng

, an d t hen a few m i nu t es l at er t h e ot her m an g o t o ut

an d wen t t o th e t ru n k o f t h e v eh i cl e, ret ri ev ed so m et h in g fro m t h e tru n k

, an d p l aced

i t i n h i s pan t s

. Th i s m an t h en al s o wal k ed aro u n d “ w h e r e t h e o t h er fel lo w wen t ”

b eh in d t h e ap art m en t

.

Bas ed o n t h e in fo rm at i o n t h e v ict i m g a v e t o h er, t h e i n v es t i g at o r prep ared

p h o t o g rap h i c l i n e-u p s co nt ai n i n g ap pel l an t s ’ p i c t u res

. 5 Th e v i ct i m i d en t i fi ed

4 Ro d eri ck t es t i fi ed at t ri al o n h i s o w n b eh al f an d ad m i t t ed th at h is g i rl fri en d/

fi an cé d ro v e a s i m i l arl y co l o red Ch ev ro l et Im pal a an d h e an d Den n is were t o g et h er

i n th e v eh i cl e t h at d ay

, b u t i n si s t ed h e h ad n o t b een i n th e v ict i m ’ s ap art m en t an d h ad

n o t h i n g t o d o wi t h t h e ro b b ery

.

5 Th e ap p el l an t s ’ p i ct u res were p l aced i n s ep arat e l i n e-u p s

.

3ap p el l an t s fro m t h e l i n e-u p s, an d t hey

were s u b s eq uen t l y

arres t ed an d ch arg ed , an d

co n vi ct ed o f arm ed ro bb ery . Th es e ap p eal s fo l l o wed

.

Ca s e No . A1 7

A1 5 8 0

1

. Ro d eri ck fi rs t arg u es t h e t ri al co urt ab u s e d i t s d i s cret io n b y refu s i n g to

p o s t p o n e t he p ro ceed i n g s u n ti l a n ew ju ry v en i re co u ld b e co n v en ed aft er ap p el l an t s

fai l ed t o t i m el y ret urn t o co u rt aft er l u n ch an d t he t ri al co u rt i s s ued a b en ch warran t

fo r h i s arres t i n th e p res en ce o f t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs

. 6

Th e reco rd s h o ws t h at ap p el lan t s h ad b een in s t ru ct ed t o ret u rn t o co u rt at 1 : 3 0

p .m

. aft er t h e l u n c h b reak

. Ap p el l an t s fai l ed t o ap pear, an d t h e t ri al co u rt i n d i cat ed

d u ri n g a ben ch co n feren ce th at i t wo u l d i s s u e a b en ch warr a n t a n d b o n d fo rfei t u re.

Aft e r t h e c o u rt at t en d ed t o s o m e u n rel at ed m at t ers

, t h e co u rt ag ai n cal l ed fo r t h e

ap p el l an t s

, an d t h e co u rt i s s u ed t h e b en ch warran t an d b on d fo rfei t ure in t h e pres en ce

o f t h e p ro s pect i ve ju ro rs

.

6 Ap pel l an ts al so ap p aren t l y as s ert th at t h e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs w ere preju d i ced

b ecau s e ap p e l l an t s ret u rn ed fro m l u n ch i n t o x i cat ed

. Al t h o u g h t h e t ri al co u rt

u l t i m at el y p os tp o n ed t h e p ro ceed i n gs d u e t o ap p el l an t s ’ in ab i l i t y t o m ean i n g fu l l y

p art i ci p at e i n t h ei r defen s e d ue t o t h ei r i n t o x icat i o n

, th i s was d o n e o u t s i d e t h e

p res en ce o f t h e ju ry

an d t h ere i s n o t h i n g t o s u gg es t

, o t her t h an sp ecu l at i o n , t h at t h e

ju ry was aware t h at ap p el lan t s ap p eared i n co u rt wh i l e i n t o xi cat ed

.

4Ap p e l l a n t s t hen en t ered t h e co u rt ro o m

, an d t h e co u rt ad m o ni s h ed th em t h at

t h ey were s u p po sed t o b e t h ere at 1 : 3 0 p .m

. Den n i s ’ co u n s el o bject ed t o t h e i s s u an ce

o f t h e warran t in t h e p res en ce o f t h e v en i re, an d t h e co u rt i n d i cat ed i t w o u ld l et h er

p u t h er o b ject i o n o n t h e reco rd at a l at er t i m e. Th e tri al co u rt p ro ceed ed t o p ro p o u n d

t h e s t at u t o ry q u es t i o n s

, b u t t h en Ro d eri ck ’ s co un s el as k ed t o ap p ro ach t h e ben ch an d

i n fo rm ed t h e ju d g e t h at ap p el l an t s ap peared t o b e i n t o x i cat ed

. Th e t ri al co u rt

d i s m i s s ed th e p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs an d

, aft er i t was d et erm i n ed t h at ap p el lan t s were in

fact u nd er t h e i n fl u en ce, o rd ered t h em i n carcerat ed an d th e p ro ceed i n g s co n t i n u ed to

an o th er d ay

. Th e t ri al c o u r t a l s o al l o wed co u n sel t o p erfect h er o b j ect i on ab o u t t h e

cas e g o in g fo rward b efo re t h e s am e p o t en t i al ly p reju d i ced ju ro rs wh o h ad b een

p res en t w h en t h e b en ch warran t was i s su ed

, b u t refu s ed t o co n t i n u e t h e p ro ceed i ng s

t o al l o w a n ew v en i re t o b e s eat ed

.

W h en p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs wh o h av e n o t b een i m p an el ed o r s wo rn are ex p o s ed

t o p reju d i ci al rem ark s

, t h e p reju d i ced p art y has t wo p o t en t i al rem ed ies : (1 ) th e m o re

“ ex t rem e rem ed y ” of p o st p on em en t u nt i l a n ew p an el o f ju ro rs can b e i m p an el ed o r

(2 ) a ch al l en g e t o th e p o l l

. 7 Ba n ks t on v. S t a t e, 1 6 9 Ga. Ap p

. 9 5 5

, 9 5 5 (1 ) (3 1 5 SE2 d

7 A ch al l en g e t o t h e p o l l i s “ t h e p ro p er p ro ced u ral veh i cl e t o s eek a n ew p an el

fro m wh i ch t o res el ect a ju ry .” Her r i n g t o n v. S t a t e

, 30 0 Ga. 1 4 9

, 1 5 3 (4 ) (7 9 4 SE2 d

1 4 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

56 7 1 ) (1 9 8 4 ); s ee al s o Bel l v. S ta t e

, 3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 89

, 2 9 2 (2 ) (7 1 5 SE2 d 68 4 ) (2 0 1 1 );

Na ve v. S t a t e , 1 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 5 (3 1 8 SE2 d 7 5 3 ) (1 9 8 4 ).

Here, ap p el l an t s s o u g h t t h e ex t rem e rem ed y o f p o s t p o n em en t

, ap p aren t l y

b ecau s e al l o f t h e p o ten t i al ju r o r s s um m on ed fo r th e week were in t h e co u rt ro o m

.

Ho wev er, ap p el lan t s h av e fai l ed t o s h o w t h at t h ey were p reju di ced by t h e i s s u an ce

o f t he b en ch war r a n t s

. Ap p el l an t s d i d n o t req u es t o r at t em p t t o q u es t i o n t h e

p ro s p ect i v e ju ro rs ab o u t t h e effect o f t h e i s s uan ce of t he b en ch warran t s . An d n o n e

o f t h e p o t en t i al ju ro rs res p on d ed affi rm at i v el y t o t h e s t at u to ry vo i r d ire q u es t i o n s

co n cern in g wh et h er th ey h ad fo rm ed an y o p i n i o n co n cern in g t h e g u i l t o r i nn o cen ce

o f ap p el l an t s

, o r were p reju d i ced fo r o r ag ai ns t ap p el lan t s, an d n o n e o f t h em d i s p u t ed

t h at t hey were “ p erfect l y i m p art i al .” Al s o

, n o ne o f t h e m em bers o f t h e v en i re g av e

an y o t h er i n d i cat i on th at t h ey h ad b een p reju d i ced b y t h e i s s u an ce of t h e warran t s o r

b o n d f o r f ei t u re ag ai n s t ap pel l an t s

. Fu rt h er, ap p el l an t s d id i n fact ap p ear i n co u rt

s h o rt l y a f t e r t h e ben ch warran ts were i s su ed

, an d t h e p ro s p ect iv e ju ro rs k n ew t h ey

h ad s i m p ly b een l at e ret u rn in g fro m l u n ch an d had n ot i n fact fai l ed t o ap p ear. Un d er

t h es e ci rcu m st an ces

, an d i n t h e ab s en ce o f an y sh o wi n g o f p o s s i b l e p reju d i ce, we fi n d

n o ab us e o f d i scret i o n in t h e d en i al o f t h e req u es t fo r a p o s t p o n em en t o r co n t i n u an ce.

62

. Ro d eri ck al s o arg u es t he t ri al co u rt erred wh en it den ied h is req u es t t o recal l

t h e v i ct i m

t o t es ti fy d u ri n g h i s cas e-i n -ch i ef.

Th e reco rd refl ect s t hat t h e S t a t e cal l ed t h e v i ct i m to t es t i fy

, an d Ro d eri ck ’ s

co u ns el co n d u ct ed a cro s s an d re

- c r o s s e x am i n at i on aft er th e St at e co n cl u d ed i t s

d i rect ex am i n at i o n

. Th e St at e res t ed at t h at p o in t

, an d Ro d eri ck ’ s co u n sel req u es t ed

t h at t h e v i ct i m b e av ai l ab l e fo r recal l

. Aft er Ro d eri ck t es t i fi ed

, hi s co u n s el req u es t ed

t h at t h e vi ct i m b e recal led fo r t h e pu rp o s e of i m peach m en t. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e

req u es t , n o t i n g t h at t h e v i ct i m h ad ju s t b een t h oro u g h l y cro ss -ex am i n ed

.

Po i n t i n g t o OCGA § 1 7 -1 6 -1 0

, Ro d eri ck arg u es t h at he h ad an ab so l u t e ri g ht

t o cal l t h e v i ct im t o t es t i fy an d th at h e i s en t i tl ed t o a n ew t ri al becau s e h e w as d en i ed

t h at ri g h t

. W e d i sag ree. OCGA § 1 7

- 1 6 -1 0 pro v i des : “ [e] i t h er p art y m ay cal l as a

wi t n es s an y p ers on l is t ed o n ei t h er t h e p ro s ecu ti n g at t o rn ey ’ s o r d efen d an t ’ s wi t n es s

l i st [.] ” Bu t OCGA § 1 7 -1 6 -1 0 d o es n o t al l o w wi t n es s es to b e r ecal l ed at t ri al as a

m at t er of ri g h t an d fo r an y reas o n wh at s o ev er. In s t ead , OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 1 1 (a) g i v es

t h e t ri al co u rt reas o nab l e co n tro l o v er t h e m od e an d o rd er o f i n t erro g at i n g wi t n es s es

. 8

8 OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 1 1 p ro v i d es :

Th e co u rt s h al l ex erci s e reas o n ab l e co n tro l o v er t h e m o d e an d ord er o f

i n t erro g at in g wi t n es s es an d p res en t i n g ev i d en ce s o as t o : (1 ) M ak e th e

7See Fa r ley v. S t a t e

, 3 1 4 Ga. Ap p

. 6 6 0

, 6 6 5 (4 ) (7 25 SE2 d 79 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (t ri al co u rt h as

p o wer to d en y recal l o f wi t n es s es w h o h ad al read y b een t ho ro u gh l y cro s s -ex am i n ed

b y defen d an t ); S

mi t h v. S t a t e

, 2 6 1 Ga. Ap p. 87 1

, 8 7 5 ( 3 ) ( 5 8 3 SE2 d 9 14 ) (2 0 0 3 )

(“ Th e recal l in g o f a wi tn es s fo r fu rt her ex am i n at i o n at t h e i n s t an ce o f ei t her p art y i s

al way s wi t hi n t h e d i s cret i o n of t h e t ri al ju d g e.”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i on o m i t t ed ).

Here, wh en Ro d eri ck ’ s co u n s el as k ed fo r t he vi ct i m t o b e recal l ed

, h e o n ly ex p l ai n ed

t h at i t was fo r “ i m

p each m en t p u rp o s es ,” wi t h o u t fu rt h e r e l ab o rat i on

. Becau s e t h e

reco rd s ho ws t hat Ro d eri ck was g i v en am p l e o p p o rt u n i ty to q u es t i o n t h e wi t n es s an d

h as m ad e n o sh o wi ng as t o th e s p eci fi c i m p each m en t m at t er h e was al l eg ed l y

p rev en ted fro m p u rs ui n g

, h e h as fai l ed t o s h o w an ab u s e of d i scret i o n an d i s n o t

en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al o n t hi s b as i s

. Cf. W eb b v. S ta t e

, 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p. 6 1 1 (6 8 5 SE2 d

4 9 8 ) (2 0 0 9 ) ( r e v ers al erro r wh en t ri al co u rt refu sed t o al l o w d efen dan t t o cal l a

wi t n es s li s t ed o n t h e St at e’ s w i tn es s l i s t s o l el y becau s e t he wi tn es s was n o t al s o l i s t ed

o n t h e d efen d an t’ s l i s t ).

i n t erro g at io n an d p res en t at i o n effect i v e fo r t h e as cert ai n m en t o f th e

t ru t h ; (2 ) Av o i d n eed l es s co n s u m p ti o n o f t i m e; an d (3 ) Pro t ect wi t n es ses

fro m h aras s m en t o r u n d u e em b arras s m en t

.

8Ca s e No . A1 7 A1 5 8 1

3

. Den n i s fi rs t ch al l en g es t h e s uffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt h i s

co n vi ct i o n

. Al t h o u g h Den ni s t es t i fi ed i n h i s o wn d efen s e at tri al an d t o l d t h e ju ry t h at

h e was m erel y p res en t at t h e s cen e an d act iv el y t ri ed to d i s co u rag e t h e ro b b er, t h e ju ry

was a u t h o r i zed to d i s bel i ev e h i s t es t i m o ny

. An d al t h o u gh m ere p res en ce i s

i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w p art i ci p at i o n i n a cri m e, wh et h er a p ers o n was a part y t o a cri m e

can b e i n ferred fro m h i s p res en ce, co m p an i o n s hi p

, an d co n d u ct b efo re an d aft er t h e

cri m e was co m

m i t t ed

. W a l s h v. S t a t e

, 2 6 9 Ga. 42 7

, 4 2 9 (1 ) (4 9 9 SE2 d 3 3 2 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

Th e ev i d en ce as s et o u t ab ov e, i n cl ud i n g ev i d en ce t h at ap pel l an t s arri v ed at t h e s cen e

t o g et h er an d Ro d eri ck q u es t io ned hi s b ro t h er at t h e s cen e in an i m p l i cat i ng m an n er,

was m o re t h an s u ffi ci en t t o au t h o r i z e D e n n i s ’ co n v i ct i o n as a p art y t o t h e cri m e o f

arm ed ro b b ery

. E .g

., Pu cket t v. S t a t e

, 3 42 G a

. Ap p

. 5 1 8, 5 2 2 (1 ) (8 0 4 SE2 d 6 4 8 )

(2 0 1 7).

4

. Den n i s al s o co n t en d s t h at th e t ri al co urt erred b y refu s i n g t o g r a n t a

p o s t p o n e m e n t b ecau s e t h e ju ry was p reju di ced wh en t h e t ri al co u rt i s s u ed a b en ch

warran t fo r h i s arres t

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et o u t i n Di v i s i o n 1, w e fi n d th i s en u m erat i o n

t o b e wi t h o u t m eri t

.

95

. Den n i s n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y al l o wi ng t h e St at e to

i n t ro du ce h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r b urg l ary an d t h eft fo r t h e p urp o s es o f

i m p each m en t

. Read i n co n

ju n ct i o n

, s ub s ect i o n s (a) (1 ) an d (b ) o f OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 9

p ro v id e t hat pri o r fel o n y co n vi ct i o n s l es s t h an ten y ears o l d m ay b e i n t ro d u ced fo r t h e

p u rp os e o f at t ack i n g t h e ch aract er fo r t ru t h fu l n es s o f a wi t n es s i f t h e co u rt d et erm i n es

t h at t h e p r o b at i v e val u e o f ad m i t t i n g t h e ev i d en ce o ut wei g h s i ts p reju d i ci al effect

. 9

Th e i n t ro d u ct io n o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r fel o ny co nv i ct i o n

i s i n t e n d ed t o affo rd th e j u ry a b as i s t o i n fer t h at th e

wi t n es s ’ s ch aract er i s s u ch t h at h e wo u l d b e l es s l i k el y t h an

t h e av erag e t ru s t wo rt h y ci t i zen t o b e t ru t h f u l in h i s

t es t i m o n y

. T h e i nt ro du ct i o n o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r cri m e i s

t h u s a g en eral at t ack o n t h e cred i b i l i t y o f t h e wi t n es s

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ro bi n s o n v. S t a t e 33 6 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2 7

, 6 3 1 (3 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 3 0 4 )

(2 0 1 6). W e rev i ew t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n to ad m i t t hi s ev id en ce u n d er an ab u s e o f

9 W e n o t e t h at s u bs ect i o n (a) (1 ) o f OCGA § 24 -6 -6 09 ap p ly i n g t o pri o r cri m es

o f th e accu s ed

, wh i ch are l es s t h an t en y ears ol d

, d oes n ot req u ire t h e p ro b at iv e v al u e

o f ad m i t t i n g t h e p ri o r cri m e “ s u b s t an t i al l y ” o ut wei g h i t s p reju di ci al effect

, as was t h e

cas e u n der th e p ri o r l aw an d i s p res en t l y t h e cas e u n der s u b sect i o n (b ) o f O CGA § 2 4

-

6 -6 0 9, w h i ch ap p l i es wh en t h e p ri o r cri m e i s m o re t h an ten y ears ol d

. W i l l i a ms v.

S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 8 34 , 8 3 6 (2 ), n .2 (7 92 SE2 d 3 3 6 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

10d i s cret i o n st an d ard

. Id .; Smi t h v. S t at e

, 3 3 1 Ga. A pp

. 2 9 6

, 2 9 9

, 3 0 0 (2 ) (7 71 SE2 d 8 )

(2 0 1 5).

Here, as t he t ri al co urt fo u n d

, Den n i s p l aced h i s cred ib i l i t y d i rect ly at i s s u e by

t es t i fy i ng at tri al th at h e t o o k n o p art i n t h e arm ed ro b b ery an d t h at h e act u al l y t ri ed

t o d is co urag e th e ro b ber b y t el l i n g h im t h at th e v i ct i m d i d n o t h av e an y t h i n g t o t ak e.

Fu rt h er, Den n i s h ad al read y ad m i t ted t h at h e h ad a cri m i n al p as t an d s ai d h e was at

t h e v i ct i m ’ s ap ar t m e n t t o co l l ect m o n ey fo r a d ru g s al e an d t o s el l h i m m o re d ru g s

,

an d t h u s th e ju ry di d no t l earn t h at h e was a cri m i n al s o l el y fro m t he ad m i s s i o n o f t h e

ev i d en ce. Las t ly , al t h o u gh Den n i s arg u es t h at t he ev i d en ce co ul d p erm i t th e ju ry t o

i m p ro p erl y d raw in feren ces t hat h e h ad an i n cl i n at io n o r p ro p en s i t y t o co m m i t t h eft

cri m es in s t ead o f l im i ti n g t h e p ri o r c ri m es ev i d en ce to i t s s t at ed p u rp o s e o f

i m p each m en t

, u n d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, we fi n d n o ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n in t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n t h at t he pro b at i v e v al u e o ut w ei g h ed i ts p reju d i ci al effect an d

i n a d m i t t i n g t h e p ri o r cri m es fo r t h e pu rp o s e o f g en eral l y at t ack in g Den n i s ’

cred i b i l i t y

. Ro b i n so n 3 36 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 3 0 -3 1 (3 ); S mi th

, 3 31 Ga. Ap p at 2 9 9-3 0 0 (2 ).

6

. L as t l y

, Den n is arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt co m m i tt ed p l ai n erro r b y ch arg i n g

t h e ju ry t h at it co n s i d er t h e p ri o r co nv i ct i o n s fo r “ an y rel at i o n t h at t h ey m ay h av e wi th

t h e al l eg ed v ict i m

i n t h i s cas e.” Bu t t h e fu l l ch arg e was as fo l lo ws :

11In d et erm i n i n g t h e cred i b i l i t y o f wi tn es s es an d an y t es t i m o ny p ro v i d ed

i n co u rt

, y o u m ay co ns i der wh et h er ap p l i cab l e ev i d en ce o ffered t o at tack

t h e cred i b i l i t y o r b el i ev ab i l i t y of an y wi t n es s

. Th i s w o u l d i n cl u de

ev i d en ce o f a fel o n y co n v i ct i o n

, an d t hat wo u l d i n cl u de fel o n y t h eft b y

t ak i n g o r bu rg lary ch arg es o r d ru g ch arg es o r p o s s es s io n o f co cai n e

....

T h e r e h as b een ev i d en ce o f p ri o r co n v i ct i on s of t h e d efen dan t s

. Y o u

m ay co n s i d er t hi s ev i d en ce o n l y i ns o far as i t m ay rel at e to cred i bi l i t y o f

t h e d efen d an t s as wi tn es s es an d an y rel at i o n th ey m a y h a v e wi t h th e

al l eg ed vi ct i m

i n t h e cas e.

Becau s e Den n is d i d n o t o b j ect to t h e ch arg e, we are l im i t ed t o rev i ew fo r p l ai n erro r.

E.g

., S t a t e v. Kel l

y, 29 0 Ga. 2 9

, 3 2

- 3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 18 SE2 d 2 32 ) (2 0 1 1 ). “ [W ] e wi l l

rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt o n ly i f an i n s t ru ct i o n al erro r was n o t affi rm at i vel y wai v ed

, was

o b v i o u s b ey on d di s p u t e, li k el y affect ed t h e ou t co m e o f the p ro ceed i n gs

, an d s eri o u s l y

affect ed t h e fai rn es s

, i n t e g r i t y

, o r p ub l ic rep ut at i o n o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s .”

Her ri n gt o n v. St at e

, 3 0 0 Ga. 1 4 9

, 15 1 (2 ) (7 9 4 SE2 d 1 4 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ); Fer g u so n v. S t a t e

,

3 3 5 Ga. Ap p . 8 6 2 , 8 7 0 (3 ) (7 83 SE2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 0 1 6).

Den n i s as sert s t hat t h e ch arg e w as p l ai n erro r b ecau s e t he referen ce t o “ an y

rel at i o n t h ey m ay h av e wi t h t he al l eg ed v i ct im i n t h e cas e” co ul d h av e p erm i t t ed t h e

ju ry to co n s i d er wh et h er t h e p ri o r co nv i ct i o n s, rat her t h an t h e ap p el l an t s

, h ad an y

rel at i o n s h i p t o t h e v i ct i m

. Al t h o u g h th e an t eced en t t o t h e pro n o u n “ t h ey ” i s n o t cl ear

12an d m ay h av e referred t o ei t h er t h e ap p el lan t s or th e p ri or co nv i ct i o n s

, w h e n t h e

ch arg e is read as a wh o l e as it m u s t b e

, an y erro r was n o t s o o bv i o u s or cl ear as to

l i kel y affect t h e o u t co m e o f t h e p ro ceed i n g s

, es p eci al l y in l i g h t of th e s t ro n g ev i d en ce

o f Den ni s ’ g u i l t

. Avel o v. S t a te

, 2 9 0 Ga. 6 09 6 1 3 -1 4 (5 ) (7 2 4 S E 2 d 3 7 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

Acco rd in g ly , we d ecl i n e t o g ran t Den n i s a n ew t ri al o n t h i s b as i s

.

Ju d g men ts a f f i r m ed . Ba r n es , P. J., a n d

Mer ci er , J., co n cu r

.

13