SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, RI C K M A N and REESE, 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 15, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A1 67 5 . ROBINSON v . THE STATE

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a j u ry t ri al

, Ro y ce Ro b i n s o n s eek s rev i ew o f h i s l i f e s en ten ce an d

cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n s s t em m i ng fro m al l eg at i o n s t h at h e k i d n ap p ed an d at t ack ed h i s

(n o w ex -) w i fe. He arg u es o n ap p eal t h at (1 ) t h e tri al co u rt erred wh en i t s en t en ced

h i m fo r k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry wh en t h e v erd i ct fo rm i n di cat ed t h at t h e ju ry

o n l y fo u n d h i m g u i l t y o f k i d n ap p i n g an d th at (2 ) t h e St at e m ad e an i m p ro p er “ g o l d en

ru l e” arg u m en t wh en i t a s k e d t h e ju ry d u ri n g i t s cl os i n g arg u m en t t o rem em b er “ a

t rau m at i c ex peri en ce i n y o u r o wn l i fe.” Becau s e th e v erd i ct fo rm di d no t s p eci al l y as k

t h e j u ry t o ch o os e bet ween k i d n ap p i n g an d ki d nap p i ng wi th b od i l y i n j u ry

, t h e

i n d i ct m en t ch arg ed Ro b i n s o n wi t h k i d n ap p in g wi t h b o d i l y i nju ry

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt

ch arg ed t h e ju ry wi t h t h e el em en t s o f k i d n ap p in g wi t h b o di l y i n ju ry

, t he t ri al co u rt d idn o t err i n s en t en ci ng Ro b i n s o n acco rd i n g l y

. Th e s t at e’ s co m m en ts du ri n g i ts cl o s i n g

arg u m en t al s o d i d n o t co n s t i t u t e an im p ro p er “ go l d en ru le” a r g u m e nt b ecau s e, v i ewed

i n co nt ex t

, t h ey o nl y s o u g h t t o e x p l ai n away d i screp an ci es i n t h e wi t n es s es ’

s t at em en t s an d d i d no t i m p ro p erl y as k t h e ju ry t o p ut t h em s el v es i n t h e sh o es o f t h e

v i ct i m . W e t h erefo re affi rm

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct s

, 1 t h e ev i d en ce ad d u ced at

t ri al s h owed t h a t t h e v i ct i m was Ro b i n s o n ’ s wi fe at th e t i m e o f t h e i nci d en t

. On e

ev en in g

, d u ri n g an arg u m en t

, Ro b i n s o n d rew a k n i fe o n t h e v i ct im an d p laced i t at h er

n eck

. To g et away fro m h i m

, t h e v i c t i m wen t t o st ay at h er au nt ’ s h o us e aft er wo rk

t h e fo l l o wi n g d ay

. Ro b i n s o n ev en t u al ly wen t to t h e au n t ’ s ho u s e an d as k ed th e v i ct i m

i f h e co u l d t al k wi t h h er.

Th e v i ct i m ag reed t o t al k wi th Ro b i ns o n an d wen t wi t h h i m t o t al k in h i s car,

wh i ch was p ark ed i n t h e d ri v eway

. Th e v i ct i m kep t t he car d o o r n ex t t o h er p ro p p ed

o p en w i t h h er fo o t to k eep th e do o r fro m cl o si n g

. On ce t h e v i ct i m m ad e i t cl ear t h at

s h e d i d n ot wan t t o be w i t h Ro b i n s on an y m ore, h e “ g rab b ed ” h er b y h er h ead

, p u t t h e

car in rev ers e, an d d ro v e away wh i l e t h e v i ct i m s cream ed fo r h el p

. Du ri n g t h e d ri v e

b ack t o t h ei r h ou s e, Ro b i n s o n h i t t h e v i ct i m m u l ti p l e t i m es o n h er head

, cau s i n g t h e

1 Ja cks o n v. Vi r

gi n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 3 07 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

2v i ct i m t o s t ri k e h er h ead o n t h e car wi n d o w. W h en th e t w o arri v ed at t h ei r ho u s e, t h e

v i ct i m l ock ed h ers el f i n th e car s o t h at Ro b i n s on co u l d n ot g et t o h er. Ro b i n so n

fo rced d o wn o n e o f t h e car wi n d o ws

, y an k ed h er o u t o f t h e c a r b y h er feet

, an d

d rag g ed h er in t o t he h o u s e. On ce i n s i d e, Ro bi n s o n h i t

, k i ck ed

, an d ch o k ed t h e v i ct i m

b efo re p o l i ce arri v e d o n t h e s cen e. Th e v i ct i m s u ffered m

u l t i p l e b ru i s es

, ab ras i o n s

,

an d i n j u ri es t o h er face, n eck , arm s , an d ey es

.

A gran d ju ry i n d i ct ed Ro b i ns o n o n o n e co un t o f ki d n ap p i ng ( O C G A § 1 6 -5

-

4 0 ), o n e co u n t o f fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -4 1 ), o ne co u nt o f ag g rav at ed

as s au l t (OCGA § 1 6-5 -2 1 ), o n e co u n t o f b at t ery (OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 ), an d o n e co u nt

o f cri m in al t res p as s (OCGA § 1 6 -7 -2 1 (b )). A t t ri al

, t h e ju ry fo un d Ro b i n s on g ui l t y

o f k i d n ap p i n g

, fal s e i m

pri so n m en t

, an d b at t ery bu t acq u i t t ed h i m o f ag g rav at ed

as s au l t an d cri m i n al tres p as s

. Th e t ri al co u rt m erg ed t h e fal s e im p ri s o n m en t co u nt

wi t h t h e k i dn ap pi n g co u n t an d s en ten ced Ro b i n so n t o li fe i m p ri s on m en t . Ro b i n so n

fi led a m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed aft er a h eari n g

. Th i s ap p eal

fo l l o w ed

.

1

. Ro b i n s o n fi rs t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred wh en i t sen t en ced h im t o l i fe

i m p ri s o n m en t fo r ki d n ap p i n g wi th b o d i l y i n j u ry wh en t h e ju ry ’ s verd i c t fo rm

i n d i cat ed t h at t h ey o n ly fo u n d h i m g u i lt y of ki d nap p i ng

. Becau s e th e i n d i ct m en t

3ch arg ed Ro b i n s o n w i t h k i d n ap p i n g wi th b od i l y i nju ry

, an d b ecau se t h e t ri al co u rt

ch arg ed t h e ju ry wi t h t h e el em en t s o f k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o di l y i n ju ry

, t he t ri al co u rt d id

n o t err i n s en t en ci n g Ro b in s on acco rd i n g ly

.

W e rev i ew t h e tri al co u rt ’ s i m p o s it i o n o f a s en t en ce fo r ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n

. See

Reed v. S t a t e

, 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 4 6 6

, 4 6 8 -4 7 0 (8 0 4 SE2 d 12 9 ) (2 01 7 ) (rev i ewi n g t h e

i m p o s i t i o n o f a s en t en ce fo r ab u s e o f d i s cret io n ).

Ou r law p ro s cri bes a s u b s t an t i al l y d i fferen t p u ni s h m en t fo r k i dn ap p i n g wh en

b o d i l y i n ju ry h as b een d o n e t o t h e v i ct i m du ri n g t he co u rs e o f sai d k i d nap p i n g

. Un d er

t h e G eo r g i a Co d e, t h e o ffen s e o f k i d n ap p i n g is n o rm al l y p u ni s h ab l e by

“ [i ] m p ri s o n m en t fo r n o t l es s t h an t en n or m o re t h an 2 0 y ears .” OCGA § 16 -5 -4 0 (d )

(1 ). Ho w ev er, “ i f t h e p ers on k id n ap p ed recei v ed b o d i l y i n ju ry ,” t h en t h e o ffen s e o f

k i d n ap p i ng i s p u n i s h ab l e by l i fe i m p ri s on m en t

. OCGA § 1 6-5 -4 0 (d ) (4 ). “ A l t h o u g h

t h e s t at u te d o es n o t m ak e i t ex p l i ci t

, t h e co u rt s h av e t reat ed ki d nap p i ng w i th b o d i l y

i n ju ry a s a d i st i n ct o ffen se s ep arat e fro m an d g reat er t h an ki d n ap p i ng .” Hes t er v.

S t a t e

, 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 0 (2 ) (4 5 4 SE2 d 6 04 ) (1 9 9 5). “ T hu s

, ev en i f t h ere is ev i d en ce

t h at th e k i d n ap p i n g vi ct i m s uffered b o d i l y i n ju ry

, i t i s n o t p ro p er t o s en t e n c e t h e

d efen d an t fo r k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o di l y i nju ry wh ere th e i n d i ct m en t c h a r g e d o n l y

4s i m

p l e k i d n ap p i n g a n d / o r t h e ju ry was i n s t ru ct ed o n l y o n s i m p l e ki dn ap p i n g.”

(Ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed .) Id

.

E ven th ou g h t h e verd i ct fo rm h ere i nd i cat ed t hat t h e ju ry fo un d Ro b i n s o n

g u i l t y o f “ k i dn ap p i n g ,” t h e t ri al co u rt n ev ert h el es s p ro p erl y s en t en ced Ro b i n s o n fo r

k i d n ap p i ng wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry

. Th e p re-p ri n t ed v erd ict fo rm u s ed at Ro b i n so n ’ s t ri al

read

, “ W e, t h e J u ry

, fi n d t h e Defen d an t

, ROYCE ROBINSON, J R.,

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ o f t h e

ch arg e of KIDNAPPING.” Th e v erd i ct fo rm d i d n ot g i v e t h e ju ry th e o p t io n t o ch o o s e

b et ween k i d n ap p in g o r k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry o r s p eci al l y a s k t h e ju ry

wh et h er b o d i l y i n

j u ry occu rre d

. I n s t ead

, t h e i n d i ct m en t al l eg ed t h at Ro b i n so n

co m m i t t ed k i d n ap p i n g wh en h e “ u n l awfu l l y ab d uct [ed t he v i ct i m ] wi t h o u t l awfu l

au t h o ri t y o r warran t an d hel d su ch p ers o n ag ai n s t h er wi l l

, s a id a ct r es u l t i n g i n b o d i l y

i n j u r y t o [t h e v i ct i m ] .” (Em

ph as i s s u p p l ied .) W h en t h e t ri al co u rt i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry

,

i t r e a d t h e i n di ct m en t fo r t h e ju ry an d al s o i ns t ru ct ed t h em o n t h e el em en t s o f

k i d n ap p i ng wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry

. Gi v en t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, t h e v erd i ct was cl ear t h at

t h e ju ry fo u n d Ro b i n s o n g u il t y o f k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry

, an d s o t h e t ri al co u rt

d i d n o t ab u s e it s d i s c r e t i o n b y sen t en ci n g Ro bi n s on t o l i fe i m p ri s o n m en t fo r

k i d n ap p i ng wi t h b o d il y i n ju ry

. See Jen ki ns v. S t at e

, 2 69 Ga. 2 8 2

, 2 95 (2 3 ) (c) (4 9 8

SE2 d 5 0 2 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (d efen dan t was p ro p erl y s en t en ced fo r k i d n ap p i n g wi t h b o d i l y

5i n

ju ry rat h er t han k i d n ap pi n g

, ev en t h o u g h v erd i ct fo rm ju s t l i st ed “ k i d n ap p i n g,”

wh en t h e i n d ict m en t sp eci fi ed t h at b o d i l y h arm was do n e t o t h e v i ct i m s an d t h e t ri al

co u rt ch arg ed t h e ju ry o n b od i l y i n ju ry an d s et o u t t h e el em en t s o f k i d n ap pi n g wi th

b o d i l y i n ju ry ). Co m

p are Pa t r i ck v

. S t at e

, 2 47 Ga. 1 6 8, 1 7 0 (2 7 4 SE2 d 57 0 ) (1 9 8 1 )

(d efen d an t was no t p ro p erl y s en t en ced fo r k i d n ap p in g wi t h b o d i l y i nju ry wh en t ri al

co u rt o n l y i n st ru ct ed t h e ju r y o n s i m p l e k i d n ap p i n g ); S

mi t h v. S t a te

, 3 0 2 Ga. Ap p.

2 2 2

, 2 2 5 -2 2 6 (2 ) (6 9 0 SE2 d 8 6 7 ) (2 01 0 ) (l i fe sen t en ce v a c a t e d w h ere i n d i ct m en t

al l eg ed th e d efen d an t co m m i t t ed k i d nap p i n g

, n o t ki d n ap p i ng wi t h b o d i l y i n ju ry );

Hes ter , s u p ra, 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p . at 4 0 0 (2 ) (l ife s en t en ce v acat ed wh ere i n d i ct m en t an d

ju ry ch arg e b ot h al l eg ed s i m pl e k i d n ap pi n g rat h er t h an k i d nap p in g wi t h b o d i l y

i n ju ry ).

2

. R o bi ns o n al so arg u es t h at th e St at e m ad e an i m p ro p er “ g o l d en ru l e”

arg u m en t d u ri n g i t s cl o si n g s t at em en t t h at as ked t h e ju ry t o p u t t hem s el v es i n t h e

p o s i t i on o f t h e v ict i m

. Becau s e t h e St at e’ s arg u m en t d i d n o t as k t he ju ry t o p ut

t h em s el v es i n t h e s h o es o f a cri m e v i ct i m

, an d b ecau s e t h ey were m o re l i k e l y a n

at t em p t t o ex p l ai n di screp an ci es i n s o m e o f t h e wi t n es ses s ’ s tat em en t s, we di s ag ree.

W e rev i ew a deci s i o n reg ard i n g an i m p ro p er cl os i n g arg u m en t fo r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

. S

a t t er f i el d v. S t a t e

, 3 3 9 Ga. A p p

. 1 5

, 2 2 (3 ) (7 9 2 SE2 d 4 5 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ). “ A

6‘ go l den ru le’ arg u m en t i s on e t h at

, reg ard l es s o f th e n o m en cl at u re u s ed

, a s k s t h e

ju ro rs to p l ace t h em s el v es i n a vi ct i m ’ s p o s i t i o n

. Su ch an arg u m en t i s i m p erm i s s i b l e

b ecau s e i t en co u rag es t he ju ro rs t o d ep art fro m n eu t ral i t y an d to deci d e t h e cas e o n

t h e bas i s o f p ers o n al i nt eres t a n d b i as rat h er t h an o n t h e ev i den ce.” (Ci t at i on s

o m it t ed .) Id

.

Ro b in s o n sp eci fi cal l y p o i n t s t o t h e fo l l o wi n g s tat em en t s m ad e by t h e St at e

d u ri n g cl o s i n g :

T h i n k b ack to a t rau m at i c ex p eri en ce i n y o u r o wn l i fe. Ho w m an y

d et ai l s d o y o u rem em

ber ab o u t th e ex p eri en ce i ts el f? Yo u rem em b er

wh at s o m eb o d y d i d o r wh at yo u h eard or wh at y o u s aw, b u t d o y o u

n eces s ari l y rem em

b er wh at y o u were weari ng ?

. . .

Do y o u rem em

b er ev ery s p eci fi c d et ai l ab o u t t h e th i n gs t h at were n o t

i m p o rt an t t o t h e t rau m a t h em s el v es ?

No w, t h i n k ab o u t w h o y o u were wi t h

. W o u l d ev ery p ers o n th at w as w i t h

y o u rem em

ber it i n t h e s am e way ? W o u l d t h ey rem em b er t h e s a m e

d et ai l s

, o r wo u l d t h ey

rem em ber d ifferen t d et ai l s?

. . .

7So i s i t an y w o nd er th at [t h ree St at e wi t n es s es an d t h e v i ct i m ] rem em b er

t h i n gs d i fferen t l y? N o

. It ’ s n ot an y un ex pect ed t h in g

. Of co urs e t h ey

rem em b er t h i n g s d ifferen t l y

. Th ey ’ re s t an d i ng i n d i fferen t p os i t i o ns

.

Th ey ’ re s eei n g t h in g s d i fferen t l y

.

Vi ewed i n co n tex t

, w e can n o t s ay t h is s tat em en t co n s t i t u t ed an i m p erm i s s i b l e

g o l d en ru l e ar gu m en t

. Th e s t at em en t

, tak en as a w h o l e, d i d n o t as k t h e ju ry t o p ut

t h em s el v es i n t h e v i ct i m ’ s s h o es fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f as k i ng t h e ju ry t o s y m p at h i ze wi th

t h e v i ct i m o r as k th e j u ry h o w t h ey wo u l d h av e fel t i f th ey were th e v i ct i m t o a cri m e.

I n s t e a d

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r m ad e t h i s st at em en t i n an at t em p t t o ex p l ai n away

i n co n s i s t en ci es i n t he t es t i m o n i es o f m an y o f t h e wi t n es ses

. See Men ef ee v. S t a t e

, 3 0 1

Ga. 5 05

, 5 12 -5 1 3 (4 ) (a) (i i ) (A) (8 0 1 SE2 d 7 8 2 ) (2 01 7 ) (n o i m p ro p er “ g ol d en ru l e”

arg u m en t wh ere p ro s ecu t o r’ s s t at em en t s co u l d b e “ m o re re a s o n ab l y s een as t h e

p ro s ecu to r’ s effo rt s to ex p l ai n

. . . t h e i n co n s i s ten ci es i n t h e [wi t n es s ’ s ] s t at em en t s );

S a t t er f i el d

, s u p ra, 3 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 2 (3 ) (n o im pro p er “ g ol den ru l e” arg u m en t wh ere

s t at em en t “ was n o t co n cern ed wi t h h o w a ju ro r wo ul d feel i f h e o r s h e were t h e

v i ct i m .”). W e a l s o n ot e t hat t h e s t at em en t al s o as k ed t he ju ry t o rem em b er a

“ t rau m at ic ex p eri en ce,” wh i ch wo u ld n o t n eces s ari ly cau s e t h e j u r y t o rem em b er a

cri m e. Fu rt h erm o re

, t h e s t at em en t was i n referen ce t o t h e m em ori es of m an y o f t h e

8o t h er wi t n es s e s t o t h e i n ci d en t, al l b u t o n e o f wh i ch were n ot v ict i m s to t h e cri m e.

Gi v en al l o f t h es e ci rcu m st an ces

, we can n o t s ay t h at t h e St at e’ s arg u m en t h ere w as

an i m p ro p er g ol d en ru le arg u m en t

.

A c c or dingly

, fo r t he reas on s p ro v i d ed ab o v e, w e a f f ir m R obinson’ s c onvic tions

an d t o tal s en t en ce.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ri ckma n a n d

Rees e, JJ., co n cu r

.

9