FI FTH DI VI SI ON

PHI PPS, P. J.

, DI LLA RD and PETERSON, 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

M ay 2, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 22 8 . W A TSON v

. THE STATE. PE-0 0 7 C

P E T E R S O N , J u d g e.

Ro d rek u s W at so n

, co n v ict ed o f ro b bery as a l es s er i n cl u d ed o ffen s e o f arm ed

ro b b ery an d t heft b y recei v i n g s t o l en pro p ert y

, ap p eal s fro m th e d en ial o f h i s m o t i o n

fo r n ew t ri al

. He arg u es th at t h e t ri al co urt erred in d en y i n g h i s m o t io n fo r a d i rect ed

v erd i ct m ad e aft er t h e St at e’ s cas e-i n -ch i ef, an d u rg es u s t o o v erru le p reced en t fro m

t h e Su p rem e Co urt o f Geo rg i a pro v i d i n g t h at we m ay co n s i d er al l t h e t ri al ev i d en ce,

n o t ju s t t h e ev i d en ce i nt ro d u ced d uri n g t h e St at e’ s cas e-i n-ch i ef, i n ev al u at i n g t h i s

cl ai m

. W at s o n al s o arg u es t hat t ri al co u n sel was i n effect i v e fo r fai li n g t o ob ject t o o r

req u es t a l i m i t i n g i ns t ru ct i o n wi t h reg ard t o referen ces t o h i s s t a t u s a s a co n v i ct ed

fel o n

. Becau s e we h av e n o au t h o ri t y t o o v erru l e o r m o d i fy a deci s i o n o f t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt of Geo rg i a, an d t h e ev id en ce d i d n o t d em an d a v erd i ct o f acq u it t al

, we rejectW at s o n ’ s fi rs t cl ai m o f erro r. W e al s o co n cl u d e t h at W at so n ’ s cl ai m t h at co u n s el was

ine f f e c tive fai l s b ecau s e, g i ven t h e s t ro n g ev i d en ce co n nect i n g W at so n t o th e r obbe r y

,

h e h as fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab il i ty t h at t h e o u t co m e of h i s tri al wo u ld

h av e b een d i fferen t b u t fo r h i s co u n s el ’ s erro r. Th erefo re, we affi rm

.

On ap p e a l fro m t he d en i al of a m o t i o n fo r di rect ed v erd i ct

, t h is Co u rt m u s t

v i ew t h e t ri al ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e ju ry ’ s verd i ct

. Hel t o n v.

S t a t e

, 2 8 4 Ga. A p p

. 7 7 7

, 7 7 7 -7 8 (1 ) (6 4 4 SE2 d 89 6 ) (2 0 0 7 ). So v i ewed

, t h e t ri al

ev i d en ce s h o ws th at t h ree m en p art i ci p at ed i n a s m as h -an d -g rab ro b b ery at a jewel ry

k i o s k i n a m al l

. T h e as sai lan t s u s ed h am m ers t o s h at t er t h e g l as s d i s p lay cas es

, t o o k

jewel ry fro m t he cas es

, an d fl ed t h e s cen e i n a s t o len car. Aft er t h e as s ai l an t s fl ed

, t h e

k i o s k em p l oy ee n ot iced b lo od o n t op o f t h e gl as s d i s p l ay cas e t h at was n o t t h ere p ri o r

t o t he ro b b ery

.

A po l i ce i n ves t i gat o r t o o k b l o od s wab s fro m t h e d is p l ay cas e an d fro m b ro k en

g l as s in s i d e t h e d i s p l ay cas e, an d se n t t h e s am p l es fo r DNA t es t i n g. 1 A GBI DNA

an al y s t co m

p ared t h e DNA p ro fi l e fro m t h e reco v ered b l o o d sam p l es ag ai n s t a l i s t o f

k n o wn i n d i v id ual s

, wh i ch d id n o t in cl u d e W at so n

, an d d et erm i n ed t h at t h e DNA was

1 Bl o o d s wab s were al so t ak en fro m t h e o u ts i d e Th e Li m i ted

, a ret ai l s t o re in

t h e m al l, an d t h e DNA fro m t h es e s wab s was a m at ch fo r co -d efen d an t Cu rt is Tu rn er.

2n o t a m at ch fo r t h es e i n d i v id ual s

. Th e DNA an al y s t t h en s u b m it t ed th e DNA p ro fi l e

t o t h e FB I ’ s Co m

b i n ed DNA In d ex Sy s t em (CODIS), wh i ch co l l ect s DNA p ro fi l es

p ro v id ed b y lo cal l ab o rat o ri es t ak en fro m arres t ees

, co n v i ct ed offen d ers

, an d fo ren s i c

ev i d en ce fo u n d at cri m e s cen es

, i n cl u d in g t h o s e fro m u n i den t i fi ed in d i v i du al s

. See

Bh a ra d i a v. S t at e , 2 9 7 Ga. 5 6 7 , 5 6 9 (1 ) n .3 (7 7 4 SE2 d 9 0 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

CODIS i s su ed a “ h it ” i nd i cat i n g t h at W at s o n was a m at ch fo r th e DNA p ro fi l e

o b t ai n ed fro m t he b l o od s wab s. Th e CODIS rep o rt pro v id ed t h at i t was t o b e u s ed

o n l y a s a n i n v es t i g at i v e l ead

. Th e GBI DNA an al y s t t es t ifi ed t h at GBI h as a p o l i cy

re q u i r i n g l o cal au t h o ri t i es t o o bt ai n an o t h er DNA sam pl e fro m t he i n d i v i d u al

i d en t i fi ed i n th e CODIS rep o rt an d s u bm i t i t fo r fu rt her t es t i n g i n o rd er to co n fi rm t h e

CODIS res u lt s

. No ad di ti o n al D NA s am p les were t ak en fro m W at s o n u n t i l ab o u t a

week b efo re h is M ay

2 0 1 2 t ri al

.

Th e t ri al co u rt i n i ti al l y h el d t h a t t h e DNA t es t res u l t s o f t ho s e ad d i t i o n al

s am p l es were i n ad m i ss i b l e b ecau s e W at s o n d id no t recei v e a co p y o f t h e res ul t s p ri o r

t o t ri al

. Bu t aft er W at s o n cal led Cu rt i s Tu rn er, a co -d efen d an t , t o t es t i fy t h at h e d id

n o t kn o w W at s o n an d t h at W at s o n was n o t i n v o lv ed i n t h e ro b b ery

, 2 t h e t ri al co u rt

2 Tu rn er tes ti fi ed t h at h e, co -d efen d an t K el s ey Ri ch ard so n

, an d h i s co u si n,

Dam ean Ed ward s

, were t h e t h ree m en i n v o l v ed i n t he s m as h-an d -g rab at t h e k i o s k.

Al t h o u g h a fo u rt h c o

- d e f e n d an t

, Ed ward Tat e, was al so ch arg ed wi t h an d p l ead ed

3g ran t ed th e St at e’ s req ues t t o p res en t reb u t t al ev i d en ce. On reb u t t al

, t h e St at e

i n t ro du ced ev i d en ce t h at i t h ad co n fi rm ed t he CODIS rep o rt a f t e r t e s t i n g t h e

ad d it i o n al DNA sam

p l es t ak en fro m W at s o n i n M ay 2 0 12

, m ean i n g t h at W at s o n ’ s

DNA p ro fi l e m at ch ed t h at of t h e b l o o d reco v ered fro m t h e d i s p l a y c a s e

. Th e ju ry

s u b s eq u en t l y fo un d W at s o n g u i l t y o f ro b b ery an d

, b as ed o n t h e u s e o f t h e s t o l en

v eh icl e, t h eft b y

recei v i n g s t ol en p ro p ert y

.

1

. On ap p eal

, W at s o n arg u es th at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y in g h i s m o t i o n

fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct o f acq u i t t al

, an d arg u es th at o u r rev i ew o f h i s cl ai m s h o u l d b e

l i m i ted t o th e ev i d en ce i n t ro d u c e d d u ri ng t h e St at e’ s cas e-i n -ch ief. W at s on arg u es

t h at at t h e ti m e h e m ad e h i s m o t i o n , t h e o n l y ev i d en ce l i nk i n g h i m t o t h e cri m e was

t h e C O D I S r ep o rt t h at s p eci fi cal l y p ro v id ed t h at t he i n fo rm at i o n co n t ai n ed t h erei n

was t o b e u s ed o n l y as an i n v es t i g at i v e l ead an d was req u ired t o b e co nfi rm ed wi th

fu rt her i n v es t i gat i o n

. W e d i s ag ree.

A m o t i o n fo r a d irect ed v erd i ct o f acq u i t t al s h o ul d b e g ran t ed o n ly wh en “ t h ere

i s no co n fl i ct in t h e ev i den ce an d t h e ev i d en ce wi t h al l reas o n ab l e d ed u ct i o n s an d

i n feren ces th erefro m s h al l d em an d a v erd i ct of acq u i t t al o r ‘ n o t g u i lt y .’ ” OCGA § 1 7

-

9 -1 (a); Pa r h a m v. S t at e

, 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p

. 6 7 6, 6 77 (2 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 1 3 5 ) (2 0 1 3 )

. U n d er

g u i l t y t o t h e arm ed ro bb ery , h e was n o t p res en t d u ri ng t h e o ffen s e.

4Bet h a

y v. S t at e

, 2 35 G a. 3 7 1

, 3 7 4 -7 5 (1 ) (2 1 9 SE2 d 7 4 3 ) (1 9 7 5 ), a co u rt rev i ewi n g

t h e d en i al of a m o t io n fo r a d irect e d v e r d i c t i s n o t l im it ed t o co ns i d eri n g o n l y t h e

ev i d en ce p res en t ed i n t h e cas e-i n -ch i ef, b u t m ay co ns i d er al l t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e cas e.

Here, t h e St at e i n t ro d u ced ev i d e n c e d u r i n g i t s cas e-i n -ch i ef s h o wi n g t h at a

CODIS r e p o r t r e v eal ed t hat t he DNA fo u nd at t h e cri m e s cen e was a m at ch fo r

W at s o n

. On reb u t t al

, t he St at e pres en t ed ev i d en ce t h at t h e CODIS rep o rt was

co n fi rm ed wi t h s u b s eq u en t tes ti n g

. In a p ro tract ed arg u m en t s p an n i n g al m o s t h al f o f

h i s bri ef, W at s o n arg u es t h at we s h o u l d o v erru l e o r ab an d on Bet h a y ’ s ex p res s

p ro v is i o n t h at we m ay co n s i d er al l o f t h e tri al ev id en ce i n ev al u at i n g t h e d en i al o f a

m o ti o n fo r d i rect ed v e r d i c t

. Bu t we h av e “ n o au t h o ri t y t o o v erru l e o r m o d i fy a

d eci s i o n m ad e b y t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f G eo rg i a, as t h e d eci s i o ns o f th e Su p rem e

Co u rt s h al l b i n d al l o t h er co u rt s as p reced en t s

. ” Hu d s o n v. S t a t e

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 5 7,

6 6 0 (3 ) (7 5 4 SE2 d 6 2 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (ci t at i on an d p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). M o reo v er, W at so n

m ak es n o arg u m en t t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n al l o wi ng t he St at e t o p res en t reb u t t al

ev i d en ce co n fi rm i n g t h e DNA m at ch

. Th u s, W at s o n h as fai l ed t o pro v i de a l eg al b as i s

p recl u d i n g o u r co n si d erat io n o f t he DNA ev i d en ce.

Rev i ewi n g al l o f t he tri al ev i d en ce, th e St at e es t ab li s hed t h at n o b l o o d was o n

t h e d i s p lay cas e p ri o r t o t h e ro b b ery

, bl o o d was l eft o n an d i n s i d e t he d i s p l ay cas e as

5a res u l t o f t h e cri m e, an d t h e b l o o d was a m at ch fo r W at s on ’ s DNA. Th ere was n o

ev i d en ce t o ex p l ai n h o w Wa t s on ’ s b l o o d co ul d h av e b een left at t h e cri m e s cen e at

a t im e o t h er t h an wh en th e cri m e was co m m i t t ed

. T hu s

, t h e ju ry wo u l d h av e b een

au t h o ri zed t o co n v ict W at s o n o f ro b b ery b as ed o n h i s DNA ev i d en ce at th e cri m e

s cen e. S ee Ba r st a d v. S ta t e

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 4

, 2 1 6 -1 7 (1 ) (7 6 4 SE2 d 4 5 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (t h e

ju ry was au t h o ri zed to i n fer d efen d an t ’ s g u il t b as ed o n

, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s

, t h e l ack

o f e v i d e n ce s h o wi n g h o w h i s DNA was l eft at t h e cri m e s cen e o th er t h an t h e

co m m i s s io n o f t he offen s es ); Ro b er t s v. S t a t e

, 3 0 9 Ga. Ap p

. 6 81

, 68 3 (1 ) (7 1 0 SE2 d

8 7 8 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (co n cl u d i n g t hat t h e u nex p l ai n ed p res en ce o f d efen dan t ’ s b l o o d at cri m e

s cen e au t h o r i zed t h e ju ry t o fi n d t h e d efen d an t g u i l ty o f cri m e). Becau s e th ere was

ev i d en ce s h o wi n g t hat W at s o n was co n n ect ed t o t h e cri m es o f ro b bery an d t h eft b y

recei v i ng

, t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t err in d en y i n g W at so n ’ s m o t i o n fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct

.

2

. W at s o n n ex t arg u es t h at tri al co u n s el was i neffect i v e fo r fai li n g t o o b ject to

o r req u es t a li m i t i n g i n st ru ct i o n reg ard i n g t es t im o n y th at CODIS was m ad e u p o f

g en et i c p ro fi l es o f co n v ict ed fel on s o r to o bject t o t es t i m o n y t h a t W a t s o n was

p rev i o u s l y co n v i ct ed o f a fel on y . W e d i s ag ree.

In o rd er t o p rev ai l o n an in effect i v e as si s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m

, W at so n “ m u s t

s h o w t h at t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce fel l b el o w a reas o n ab l e s tan d ard o f co n d u ct an d

6t h at t h ere ex i s t ed a reas on ab l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h at t h e o u tco m e o f t h e cas e wo u l d h av e

b een d i fferen t h ad i t n o t b een fo r co u n sel ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce.” S co t t v. S t a t e

, 2 9 0

Ga. 8 83

, 8 8 9 (7 ) (7 2 5 SE2 d 3 0 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (ci t i n g St r i ckl a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n

, 4 6 6 U. S.

6 6 8 (1 0 4 S.Ct

. 2 0 5 2, 8 0 LEd 2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 )). In rev i ewi n g a cl a i m o f i n e f f ect i v e

as s i s tan ce of co u n s el

, w e g i v e d eferen ce t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g s

, wh i ch

are u p hel d u n l es s cl earl y erro neo u s

, an d r e v i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s leg al co n cl us i o n s d e

n o v o

. Gr a n t

v. S t a te , 2 9 5 Ga. 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 (5 ) (7 5 7 SE2 d 8 3 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

Here, t ri al co u n sel d i d no t o b ject wh en t h e GBI DN A a n a l ys t tes t i fi ed t h at

CODIS co n t ai n ed DNA pro fi l es o f co n v i ct ed o ffen d ers

, “ m i s s i ng p ers on s ,” an d

fo ren s i c ev i d en ce co l l ect ed a t c r im e sc e nes

. In res p o n s e t o t ri al co u ns el ’ s q u es t i o n i n g,

t h e wi t n es s rep eat ed h er tes ti m on y t h at CODIS co n t ai n ed DNA p ro fi l es o f co n v i ct ed

fel o n s

. Tri al co u n s el al s o d i d n o t o b ject wh en t h e St at e el i ci t ed t es ti m o n y fro m t h e

p o l i ce i nv es t i g at o r t h at t h e DNA p ro fi l e o f an o t h er s u sp ect was i n CODIS as a res u l t

o f t h at s u s p ect ’ s fel o n y c o n v i ct i on

, n or d i d co u ns el ob ject wh en th e d et ect i v e

co n fi rm ed th at W at so n was co n v i ct ed o f a fel o n y p ri or t o 2 0 0 8

. Th i s Co u rt h as s t at ed

t h at “ ev i d en ce t h at a d efen d an t ’ s DNA p ro fi l e is i n cl u d ed i n a d at ab as e co m p i l ed by

a s tat e o r a fed eral g ov ern m en t ag en cy wo u l d refl ect b ad l y o n t h e d efen d an t ’ s

ch aract er i f t h e DNA p ro fi le o r refe r e n ces t o t h e d at ab as e l i n k ed th e d efen d an t to

7cri m i n al act i v i t y

. ” S ca les v. S t a t e

, 3 10 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8

, 51 -5 2 (2 ) (a) (i i ) (7 1 2 SE2 d 5 5 5 )

(2 0 1 1).

As s u m i ng wi t h o u t deci d i n g t h at t ri al co u n s el was defi ci en t i n fai l i n g t o o b ject

t o o r req u es t l i m i t i n g i n s t ru ct i o n s reg ard in g referen ces t o W at s on ’ s p ri o r fel o ny

co n vi ct i o n

, W at s o n h as fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h p reju di ce. In t h i s s m as h -an d-g rab ro b b ery

,

W at s o n ’ s DNA was fo u nd n o t o n l y o n t h e g l as s d i s p l ay cas e o f t h e k i os k

, b u t al s o o n

b ro k en g l as s i n s id

e th e cas e. Th e u n co n t rad i ct ed ev i d en ce s h o ws t hat t h ere was n o

b l o o d o n t h e d i s p l ay cas e p ri o r t he ro b b ery

. Gi v en t h at t he u n di s p u t ed ev i d en ce

es t ab l i s h es t h at W at s o n ’ s b l o od was l eft i n s i d e t h e b ro k en g l as s cas e at t h e t i m e t h e

cri m e was co m

m i t t ed , t h ere i s n o reas o nab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r t ri al co u n sel ’ s

erro rs , t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al wo u l d h av e been d i fferen t. Th erefo re, t h e t ri al co u rt

co rrect ly reject ed W at so n ’ s cl ai m

o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el

.

Ju d g men t a f f ir med . Ph ip

p s , P. J., a n d Di l l a r d

, J., co n cu r

.

8