In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: No v e m b e r 1 7, 2 01 4

S 1 4 A1 1 6 5 . ROUS E v . THE S TATE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t S te v e n Ro use w a s fo u n d g u ilty o f fe lo n y m urd e r a nd ro b b e ry

in c on n e c tio n with th e be a tin g d e a th an d ro b be ry o f S c ott Gille n s. His m o tio n

f o r n e w tria l, in w h ic h h e a sse rte d th e ge n e ra l g ro u n d s, wa s d e n ie d

, a n d h e

a p p e a ls, a rg u in g th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d by c o m m e n tin g o n th e e v id e n c e in

v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. Afte r re v ie win g th e re c o rd a n d re le v a n t c a se la w,

we a g re e th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s sta te m e n t to th e v e n ire th a t th e m u rd e r “ h a p p e n e d

in Mu sc og e e Co u n ty ” v io la te d OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 a n d re v e rse th e ju d gm e n t o f

th e tria l c o u rt. 1

1 T he crimes occurred o n September 3, 2006. Appellant was indicted b y a Muscog ee County

g rand jury on F ebruary 13, 2007, on charg es of malice murder, felony murder, and rob b ery

. F ollowing a jury trial from Aug ust 28-31, 2007, appellant was f o und g uilty o n Aug ust 31, 2007, of

felony murder based on the underly ing felony of r obbery

. On September 10, 2007, he was sentenced

to life in prison f

o r t h e felony murder conviction. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on

September 11, 2007, which was d enied on March 17, 2 014. Appellant’s notice o f appeal was filed

on March 24, 2014. The appeal was docketed in this Court for the April 2014 term and orally arg ued

on J uly 7, 2014.1

. Vie win g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa vo ra b le to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t,

th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l re v e a le d th a t M e liss a a n d M i s sy Co n a w a y sh o we d

th e ir b o y frie n d s, Ch a rle s Me llin g e r a n d Bria n De wb e rry

, se x u a l te x t m e ssa ge s

se n t to th e m b y th e vic ti m. W h ile Me llin g e r a n d De wb e rry sta te d a n in itia l

d e sire to “ ju m p ” th e v ic tim

, a ll fo u r in d iv id u a ls e v e n tu a lly fo rm u la te d a p la n to

lu re th e v ic tim to th e ir h o u se so th a t Me llin g e r a n d D ew b er r y c ou ld ro b h im

.

De wb e rry

, wh o is a

p p e lla n t’s b ro th e r, a sk e d a p p e lla n t to h e lp with th e ro b b e ry

a n d a p p e lla n t a g re e d

.

O n th e d a

y o f th e c rim e s, Me lissa in v ite d th e v ic tim to a n a p a rtm e n t

c o m p le x n e a r h e r h o u se in M u sc o g e e Co u n ty an d a gre e d to h a v e se x with h im

in e x c h a n g e fo r c ig a re tte s. Me lissa a nd th e v ic tim la te r we n t to th e sto re to g e t

th e c ig a re tte s w h ile Missy c a lle d a p p e l l an t. Ap p e lla n t to ld Missy to h a v e

Me lissa ta k e th e vic tim to a n e a rb y p a rk in g a re a n e xt to so m e w o o d s. A fte r th e

v ic tim p a rk e d ne a r th e wo o d s, Me li s s a w al k e d a wa y fro m th e v ic tim ’s tru c k

.

Ap p e lla n t, De wb e rry a n d Me llin g e r, wh o h a d b e e n wa itin g in th e wo o d s, th e n

a p p ro a c h e d th e v ic tim

. Ap p e l l a n t p u nc h e d th e v ic tim

, p la c e d h im in a c h o k e

h o ld

, a n d k ic ke d h i m i n t h e h e a d a n d th ro a t se v e ra l tim e s wh ile h e la y o n th e

g ro u n d

. M e llin g e r to o k th e v ic tim ’s w a lle t b ut th re w it in th e b u sh e s a fte r

2d isc o v e rin g it c o n ta in e d no m o n e y

. Th e vic tim d ie d a s a re su lt o f in ju rie s to h is

h e a d a n d n e c k re su ltin g in a sp h y xia tio n

. Ap p e lla nt, wh o wa s a rre ste d la te r th a t

d a y

, a d m itte d to p o lic e th a t h e h it a n d k ic k e d th e v ic tim in th e h e a d a n d th ro a t

b u t h e c la im e d h e did so in se lf-d e fe n se

.

We fin d th e e v id e n c e w a s su ffic ie n t to e na b le a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t to fin d

a p p e lla n t g uilty b e y o n d a re a so n a ble do u b t o f th e c r i me f o r wh ic h h e wa s

c o n v ic te d

. Ja c k so n v. Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U .S

. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 L E 2 d 5 6 0 )

(1 9 7 9 ).

2

. Ap pe lla n t c o n te n d s th e tri a l c ou rt v io la te d OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b y

im p ro p e rly e x p re ssin g to th e v e n ire d u rin g ju ry se le c tio n its op in io n th a t v e n u e

wa s p ro p e r in Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty . OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 p ro v id e s:

[ i ] t is e rro r fo r a n y ju d g e in an y c rim in a l c a se

, d u rin g its p ro g re s s

o r in h is c h a rg e to th e ju ry

, to e x p re ss o r in tim a te h is o pin io n a s to

w h a t h a s o r h a s n o t b e e n p ro v e d o r a s to th e g uilt o f th e a c c u se d

. S h o uld a n y ju d g e v io la te th is Co de se c tio n

, th e v io la tio n sh a ll b e

h e ld b y th e S u p re m e Co u rt o r C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls to b e e rro r a nd th e

d e c isio n in th e c a se re v e r s e d

, a n d a ne w tria l g ra n te d in th e c o u rt

b e lo w with s u c h d ire c tio n s a s th e S u p re m e Co u rt or Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls m a y la wfu lly giv e

.

Th e la n g u a g e o f th is sta tu te is m an d a to ry

, th u s an y v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8

-

5 7 re qu ire s a n e w t r i a l re g a rd le ss o f wh e th e r th e re h a s b e e n a n y sh o win g o f

3a c tu a l p r e

j u d ic e to th e d e fe nd a n t. S e e P a te l v

. S ta te

, 28 2 Ga

. 4 1 2

, 4 1 5 (6 5 1

S E2 d 55 ) (2 0 0 7 ). S e e a lso Co llie r v

. S ta te

, 2 8 8 Ga

. 7 56

, 7 6 3 (7 0 7 S E2 d 1 0 2 )

(2 0 1 1 ) (Na h m ia s, J., sp e c ia lly c o n c u rrin g ) (if v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 is

fo u n d

, “ c o n v ic tio n will b e re v e rse d with o ut fu rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e e ffe c t

o f th e e rro r o n th e d e fe n da n t’s su b sta n tia l rig h ts or th e fa irn e ss a n d in te g rity o f

th e p ro c e e d in g ” ); S ta te v

. Ga rd ne r, 2 8 6 Ga

. 6 3 3

, 6 3 4 (6 9 0 S E2 d1 6 4 ) (2 0 1 0 )

(b e c a use v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 will a lwa y s c o nstitu te p la in e rro r, fa ilu re

to o b je c t d o e s n ot wa iv e issu e o n a pp e a l).

Th e re c o rd in th is c a se re fle c ts th a t du rin g its p re lim in a ry in stru c tio n s to

th e v e n ire , th e tria l c o u rt c o m m e n te d a s fo llo ws:

Th is p ro c e ss th is m orn in g is wh a t[] we c a ll vo ir d ire

. Vo ir d ire ju st

sim p ly m e a n s t o sp e a k th e tru th

. Th is m e a n s th a t y o u will b e

h e a rin g a b o u t a c a se

, wh ic h is a m u rd e r c a se

, th a t h a

p pe n e d in

Mu sc og e e Co u n ty , a

n d y o u ’ll b e a sk e d q u e stio n s a b o u t th is c a se

.

Th e c o u rt’s sta te m e nt th a t ju ro rs w o u ld b e h e a rin g a c a se th a t h a p p e n e d in

Mu sc o g e e Co un ty c le a rly a n d u n a m b i g u o u s l y s u g g e s t e d t

h at v e n u e i n M u s c o g e e

Co u n ty h a d b e e n e sta blish e d o r wa s n o t in d isp u te in th is c a se

. Ve n u e is a

ju risd ic tio n a l e le m e n t th a t mu s t b e p ro v e d b y th e S ta te b e y on d a re a so n a b le

d o u bt in e ve ry c rim in a l c a se

, a n d th e de te rm in a tio n o f wh e th e r v e n u e h a s b e e n

4e sta b lish e d is a n issu e so u n d ly with in th e p ro v in c e o f th e ju ry

. S e e P a te l, su pra

,

2 8 2 Ga

. a t 4 1 4

. W e fin d th a t wh e n

, a s in th is c a se

, a tri a l j u d g e m a k e s a

sta te m e n t to ju ro rs, ho we v e r in a dv e rte n t o r un in te n tio n a l, in fo rm in g th e m th a t

a c rim e oc c u rre d in a p a rtic ula r c o u n ty

, i.e

., a p a rtic u la r v e nu e

, th e m a k in g o f th e

sta te m e n t v i o la te s § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b e c a u se it c o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s a c o m m e n t

re g a rd in g a re q uire d e le m e n t o f th e S ta te ’s c a se

. Id

. S e e Jo n e s v

. S ta te

, 1 8 9 Ga

.

Ap p

. 2 3 2 (1 ) (3 7 5 S E2 d 6 4 8 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (fa c t th a t c o u rt d id no t in te n d to e x p re ss

o p in io n a b o u t issu e with in p ro v in c e o f ju ry d id no t e x c u se v io la tio n o f OCGA

§ 1 7 -8 -5 7 ). T h a t th e c ritic a l e le m e n t a b o u t wh ic h th e c o m m e n t is m a d e i s a

ju risd ic tio n a l e le m e n t o f th e S ta te ’s c a se m a k e s n o d iffe re n c e f o r p u rp o se s o f

§ 1 7 -8 -5 7 ; a c o m m e n t m a d e b y a tria l c o urt a ffirm a tiv e ly e sta blish in g a d isp u te d

e le m e n t t h e S t a te h a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g a t tria l is e rro r, a n d th is Co urt

c a n n o t su rm ise wh e th e r it m a y h a v e c a u se d a c tu a l pre

ju d ic e to th e d e fe n d a n t.

S e e M u rp h y v

. S ta te

, 2 9 0 Ga

. 4 5 9 (2 ) (7 2 2 S E 2d 5 1 ) (2 01 2) (tria l c o u rt’s

fa v o ra ble c om m e n ts a

b ou t witn e ss v io la te d O C GA § 17 -8 -5 7 b e c a u se it is

im p o ssib le to d e te rm in e th a t ju ro rs we re n o t in flu e n c e d ).

Th is c o n c lu sio n is su p p o rte d b y an d e n tire ly c o nsiste n t wi t h o u r re c e n t

d e ci s io n in P a te l v. S ta te

, su p ra

, wh e re w e h e ld v io la tiv e o f § 17 -8 -5 7 a t r i a l

5c o u rt’s sta te m e n t b e fo re ju ro rs th a t “ [v ] e n u e is p ro p e r in F a y e tte Co u n ty .”

Alth ou g h th e tria l c o u rt in th e in sta n t c a se d id n o t sp e c ific a lly re fe re n c e “ v e n u e ”

in its sta te m e nt, we fin d n o su b sta n tiv e d iffe re n c e b e twe e n a c o u rt’s sta te m e n t

th a t “ [v ] e n u e i s p r o p e r in Fa y e tte Co u n ty ” a n d a sta te m e n t th a t th e c rim e

“ h a p p e n e d in Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty .” Bo th sta te m e n ts in fo rm or in tim a te to th e

ju ry th e tria l c o u rt’s o p in io n a s to a c ritic a l e le m e nt o f th e S ta te ’s c a se

, th e re b y

p o te ntia lly in flu e n c in g ju ro rs in th e ir e v a lu a tio n o f wh e th e r th e S ta te h a s m e t its

b u rd e n o f p ro o f a t tria l. Se e a lso S ta te v

. An d e rso n

, 2 8 7 G a

. 15 9, 1 6 1 (6 9 5

S E2 d 2 6) (2 0 10 ) (h o ld in g th a t tria l c o u rt’s q u e stio n wh e th e r ve n u e h a d b e e n

e sta b lish e d a n d q u e stio n in g o f a witn e ss a s to th e lo c a tio n o f th e c rim e fo llo we d

b y th e c o m m e n t “ I ju st wa n te d to m a k e su re ” c o n stitu te d a n im p ro p e r e xp re ssio n

o f o p in io n th a t v e nu e h a d in fa c t b e e n p ro v e n ).

Th e S ta te a sse rts th a t re v e rsa l is n ot re q uire d b e c a u se th e c o u rt’s c o m m e n t

w a s a “ slip o f th e to n g u e ” o r wa s n e e de d “ to o rie nt th e v e n ire to th e t i me a n d

p la c e th e c rim e wa s a lle g e d to h a v e o c c u rre d .” No n e o f th e c a se s c ite d b y th e

S ta te in su p p o rt o f th e se p ro p o sitio n s, h o we v e r, in v o lv e d a n e x p lic it c o m m e n t

b y a tria l ju d g e in d ic a tin g th e c o u rt’s o p in io n th a t a c ritic a l e le m e n t th a t m u st b e

6p ro v e d b y th e S ta te wa s no t in d isp u te

. 2 S e e L in so n v. S ta te

, 28 7 Ga

. 8 8 1

, 8 8 3

-

8 8 4 (7 0 0 S E2 d 3 9 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (sta te m e n t d u rin g p re lim in a ry in stru c tio n s th a t S ta te

m a y n o t u s e a ll o f its witn e sse s a n d “m a y th in k th e y d o n ’t n e e d th e m a ll”

p ro v id e d n o ba sis fo r re v e rsa l u n d e r OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b e c a u se it d id n ot a d d re ss

c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s o r a n y fa c t a t issu e in tria l); S u tto n v

. S ta te

, 2 6 3 Ga

.

Ap p

. 18 8

, 1 9 1 ( 5 8 7 S E2 d 3 7 9 ) (2 00 3 ) (n o re v e rsib le e rro r w h e n tria l c o urt

e x p la in e d to ju ro rs h o w to u se v e rd ic t fo rm

, b u t in stru c te d th e m “to re m e m b e r

to c on sid e r e a c h d e fe n d a n t g u ilty ” ); Atk in s v

. Sta te

, 2 5 3 Ga

. A p p

. 1 6 9, 17 0 -1 7 1

2 A lthough the dissent argues that v enue was n ot in d ispute i n this case, the authority

it of f ers f o r this proposition are inapposite because those cases either did not i nvolve a trial

court’s com m e nt on a required elem ent of the State’s case or the def endant af f irm atively

conceded the f

act issue about which the t rial court com m ented. See McCloud v. State, 166

Ga. 436 (143 SE 558) (1908) (def e ndant adm itted he w as in police custody w hen he shot the

victim ); Tay lor v. S tate, 135 Ga. 622 ( 70 SE 237) ( 1911) (trial c o urt’s c om m ent that the

victim was “ killed” did not v iolate rule prohibiting court f rom com m enting that a particular

f act had been proved because d ef endant, whose only def

ense was alibi, in his o wn statem ents

ref erred to the “killing” of the victim ); Johnson v

. State, 30 Ga. 426, 431 (1860) (it was not

error f or trial court to state in presence of jurors that the shooting was not in dispute where

def e n d a n t a d mitted shooting the victim but c laim ed justif ication f or doing so); Thom as v.

State, 27 Ga. A pp. 38 ( 107 SE 418) (1921). Sim ilarly

, in Sauerwein v. State, 2 80 Ga. 438,

439 ( 629 SE2d 235) (2006), the uncontested f act a bout which the trial c o urt com m ented was

whether the child victim was teet h i n g a t t he tim e the crim e occurred, c learly not a f act the

State was required to p r o v e i n order to convict S auerwein of the child’s m urder. Here,

appellant pled not gu i l t y to the crim es charged, thereby placing venue in dispute, and he

m ade no concessions or af f i rm ative statem ents at trial to the af f ect that he was not holding

the State to its burden of proving venue. The d issent’s suggestion t hat appellant’s f ailure to

present v enue evidence at trial authorized the trial court to express its opinion a bout whether

the State h ad m et its burden of proving venue runs a f o u l o f our § 17-8-57 precedent and

would unconstitutionally

shif t the burden of

proof in a crim inal proceeding.

7(2 ) (5 5 8 S E 2 d 7 55 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (c o u rt’s re fe re n c e to “ fa c ts” in th e in d ic tm e n t wa s

n o t a c o m m e n t o n e v id e n c e o r o p in io n o f g u ilt).

No r c a n we a g re e with th e S ta te ’s su g g e stio n th a t a n im p ro p e r c o m m e n t

m a d e du rin g p re lim in a ry in stru c tio n s to t h e v e n ire do e s n o t c o n stitu te a

v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 pro h ib its a ju d g e in a c rim in a l

c a se “ d u rin g its p ro g re ss o r in h is c h a rg e to th e j u r y ” fro m e x p re ssin g o r

in tim a tin g a n o pin io n o n th e e v id e n c e or th e a c c u se d ’s gu ilt o r in no c e n c e

. It is

b e y o n d d isp u te t h a t v o i r d ire is p a rt o f th e “ p ro g re ss” o f a c a se

, a n d th e S ta te

c o n c e de s th a t th e ju ro rs ultim a te ly c h a rg e d with d e te rm in in g w h e th e r th e S ta te

h a d p ro v e d th e e sse n tia l e le m e n ts o f its c a se a g a in st a p p e lla n t, i nc lu d in g th e

v e n u e e le m e n t, we re m e m b e rs o f th e v e nire to wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt’s c o m m e n t

wa s d ire c te d

. S e e Ellin g to n v. S ta te

, 2 9 2 G a

. 1 0 9

, 1 2 4 (7 ) (b ) (7 3 5 SE2 d 7 3 6 )

(2 0 1 2 ) (“ [m ] uc h lik e c ro ss-e x a m in a tio n is th e e n g in e o f tr u t h i n o u r ju stic e

sy ste m

, vo ir d ire is th e e n g in e o f se le c tin g a ju ry th a t will b e fa ir a n d im p a rtia l);

Za m o ra v. S ta te

, 2 9 1 Ga

. 5 1 2

, 5 1 8 (7 ) (b ) (7 3 1 SE2 d 65 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (p ro c e e d in g s

d u rin g wh ic h ju ry is se le c te d is c ritic a l sta g e ).

Co n tra ry to th e S ta te ’s a rg u m e nt a nd th e p o sitio n ta k e n b y t h e d isse n t,

e v e n c o n sid e rin g th e tria l c ou rt’s sta te m e n t in c o n te x t, it c a n n o t be c on stru e d a s

8a m e re c o m m e nt on th e e v id e n c e ju ro rs c o u ld e x p e c t to h e a r. Th e c h a lle n g e d

sta te m e n t wa s m a d e d u rin g th e tria l c o u rt’s d e sc rip tio n of v o ir d ire

, e x p la in in g

th a t v e n ire m e m

b e rs wo u ld “ b e h e a rin g a b o u t a c a se

. . . th a t h a

p pe n e d in

Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty

. ” It wa s n o t m a d e in th e c o nte xt o f th e c o u rt’s e x p la n a t io n

o f th e a lle g a tio n s o f th e in d ic tm e n t o r th e S t a t e ’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d c a n n o t,

th e re fo re

, re a so n a

b ly be c o n stru e d a s a c o m m e n t o n wh a t th e S ta te wa s e x p e c te d

to p ro v e a t tria l. Wh ile th is Co u rt o n se ve ra l o c c a sio n s h a s fo u n d n o v io la tio n

o f § 1 7

- 8 -5 7 o n th e b a sis th a t a tria l c o u rt’s c om m e n ts re fe re n c e d on ly th e

S ta te ’s a lle

g a tio n s

, i n ea c h o f th e se c a se s th e c o n te x t o f th e su b je c t b e in g

d isc u sse d o r th e tria l c o u rt’s c o n tig u o u s c om m e n ts c le a rly d e m o n stra te d th a t th e

tria l c ou rt wa s re fe rrin g to th e S ta te ’s a lle g a t i o n s o r e v id e n c e th a t wo u ld b e

o ffe re d b y th e S ta te d u rin g its p re se n ta tio n of e v id e nc e

. S e e Fo ste r v

. S ta te

, 2 9 0

Ga

. 5 9 9

, 6 0 0-6 01 (2 ) (7 2 3 SE2 d 6 6 3 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (fin d in g n o v io la tio n o f O CGA §

1 7 -8 -5 7 in c o u rt’s p re -e v id e n tia ry c h arg e th a t “ S ta te w ill in tro d u c e e v id e n c e in

su p p o rt of th e c h a rg e s c on ta in e d in th e in d ic tm e n t” ); Ca m m on v. S ta te

, 2 6 9 Ga

.

4 7 0

, 4 7 5 (8 ) (5 0 0 S E 2 d 3 2 9 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (tria l c o u rt’s re fe re n c e d u rin g p re lim in a ry

in stru c tio n s to e v id e n c e th a t “will b e d e v e lo p e d ” re g a rd in g th e m a nn e r in wh ic h

c rim e wa s c o m m itte d wa s re fe re n c e to e v id e n c e ju ro rs c o u ld e x p e c t to h e a r, n o t

9u n a

u th o riz e d e x p re ssio n o f o p in io n a s to wh a t h a d b e e n p ro v e n ).

Arg u in g th a t a d d itio n a l in stru c tio n s g iv e n b y th e t r i a l c ou rt c a n b e

c o n sid e re d wh e n de te rm in in g th e “ c o n te xt” o f a tria l c o urt’s sta te m e n t, th e

d isse nt wo u ld fin d n o v io la tio n o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b e c a u se

, it a rg u e s, ju ro rs h e re

lik e ly wo u ld n o t ha v e in te rp re te d th e c o urt’s sta te m e n t th a t th e m u rd e r h a p p e n e d

in Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty a s a

n e x p re ssio n of its o p in io n o n p ro o f o f ve n u e b e c a use

th e tria l c ou rt su b se q u e n tly in stru c te d j uro rs th a t wh a t th e c o u rt sa id is n o t

e v id e n c e a n d re m in d e d th e m it wa s th e ir re sp o n sib ility to d e c id e th e c a se b a se d

o n th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d

. In su p p o rt o f its a rg u m e n t, th e d isse n t c ite s Ja rn ig a n

v

. S ta te

,

_

__ Ga

.

_ _ _ (7 61 S E2 d 2 5 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ), Ellis v. Sta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 2 7 6 (7 3 6

S E2 d 41 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ), a n d Lin so n v

. S ta te

, 2 87 Ga

. 8 81 (7 0 0 S E2 d 3 9 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ). A

c a re fu l re v ie w o f th e se c a se s re v e a ls, h o we v e r, t h a t th e y do n o t sta n d fo r th is

p ro p o sitio n

. In e a c h o f t h e c ite d c a se s, th is Co urt h e ld th e c h a lle n g e d

sta te m e n ts, sta n d in g a lo ne

, d id n o t v io la te § 1 7

- 8

- 5 7

. Th e C o u rt we n t o n to

a c k n o wle d g e in d ic ta th a t th e c o u rt h a d giv e n a d d iti o n a l in stru c tio n s, b u t th e

g iv in g o f su c h in stru c tio n s wa s n o t th e b a sis o f th is Co u rt’s d e c isio n s. Th e ru le

in Ge o rg ia re m a in s th a t a

n y v io la tio n o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 is su b je c t to th e su pe r-p la in

e rro r sta n d a rd of re v ie w

, a n d n o a m o u n t o f a d d itio na l in stru c tio n c a n c u re t h e

10p re su m e d

, in h e re n t p re ju d ic e c a u se d b y a vio la tio n of th is sta tu te

. S e e P a te l,

su p ra

, 2 8 2 Ga

. 4 1 2 ; Ga rd n e r, su p ra

, 2 8 6 Ga

. a t 6 3 4. Wh ile a c o urt’s o th e r

sta te m e n ts o r in stru c tio ns c a n a ffe c t th e c o n te x t a n d

, th e re fo re

, th e m e a n in g o f

a c o u rt’s sta te m e n t, wh e n a tria l c o u rt m a ke s a c le a r sta te m e nt re g a rd in g wh e th e r

a c ritic a l e le m e n t o f th e S ta te ’s c a se ha s b e e n o r n e e d s to b e e sta b lish e d

, a la te r

in stru c tio n re mi n d i n g ju ro rs th a t th e y a re th e o n e s wh o u ltim a te ly d e c id e

wh et h e r t h e Sta te h a s m e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f c an n o t c u re th e pre su m e d

p re ju d ic e c a u se d b y th e c o u rt’s e xp re ssio n o f its o pin io n o f th e e v id e n c e

.

We c o n c lu de th a t u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is c a se th e tria l c o u rt’s

sta te m e n t to th e v e n ire th a t th e c rim e to o k p la c e in M u sc o ge e Co u n ty e x p re sse d

o r in tim a te d th e c o u rt’s o p in io n a s to a d isp u te d issu e o f fa c t a t tria l in v io la tio n

o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. I n l i g h t o f th e m a n da to ry n a tu re o f th e sta tu te

, th e

ju d g m e n t o f th e tria l c o u rt m u st b e re v e rse d a n d a

p p e lla n t m

ust be g ra n te d a n e w

tria l. S e e P a te l, su p ra

, 2 82 Ga . a t 4 1 4 (2 ).

Ju d g m e n t re v e rse d

. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r, e x c e pt Hin e s, P .J., N a h m ia s,

a n d Bla c k w e ll, JJ., wh o d isse n t.

11S 1 4 A1 1 6 5 . ROUS E v . THE S TATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e , d isse n tin g

.

Re a d in g th e m a

jo rity o p in io n

, on e m ig h t th in k th a t in re v e rsin g Ro u se ’s

m u rd e r a n d ro b b e ry c o n v ic tio n s, th e Co u rt to d a y is sim p ly a p p ly in g o u r

p re c e de n ts u n de r O CGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

, a n d in p a rtic u la r th e two re c e n t c a se s wh e re

th e Co urt re v e rse d c o n v ic tio n s b a se d o n th e tria l c ou rt’s im p ro p e r c om m e n t o n

p ro o f o f ve n ue

, P a te l v

. S ta te

, 2 8 2 Ga

. 4 1 2

, 4 1 3 (6 51 S E2 d 5 5 ) (2 0 0 7 ), a n d S ta te

v

. An d e rso n

, 2 8 7 Ga

. 1 5 9

, 16 0 (6 9 5 S E2 d 2 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ). Th is is n o t so

. In fa c t,

th e m a jo rity ’s d e c isio n e x te n ds w e ll b e y on d P a te l, An d e rso n

, a n d 1 5 0 y e a rs o f

o th e r c a se s in te rp re tin g § 1 7 -8 -5 7 a n d its p re d e c e sso r sta tu te s. N e v e r b e fo re ha s

th is Co u rt re v e rse d a c o n v ic tio n b a se d o n a tria l ju dg e ’s c o m m e nt o f th is so rt

–

a n iso la te d re m a rk m a d e wh ile o u tlin in g fo r p r o s p e c tiv e ju ro rs wh a t so rt o f

“ c a se ” th e y wo u ld b e “ h e a rin g a b o u t ”; sa id du rin g th e m o st pre lim in a ry o f

in stru c tio n s to th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r s

, b e f o re v o ir d ire q u e stio n in g h a d e v e n

b e g u n ; a c c o m

p a n ie d sh o rtly th e re a fte r a n d fo llo we d re p e a te d ly b y e x p lic it

in stru c tio n s to th e ju ro rs to d e c id e th e c a se b a se d o n ly o n th e e v id e nc e p re se n te d

d u rin g tria l a

n d n ot to tre a t a n y th in g th e c o u rt sa y s a s su c h e v id e nc e ; n e v e ro b

je c te d to b y d e fe n se c o u n se l d u rin g tria l o r b y Ro u se ’s n e w a p p e lla te c o u n se l

o n m o tio n fo r n e w tria l; a n d c o n c e rn in g a n issu e

– v e n u e

– th a t th e S ta te p ro v e d

with ou t a n y d isp u te a t tria l a n d th a t re m a in s e n tire ly u n c o n te ste d o n a p p e a l.

Th e first se n te n c e o f OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 sa y s, “ It is e rro r fo r a n y ju d g e in

c rim in a l c a se

, d u rin g its p ro g re ss or in h is c ha rg e to th e ju ry

, to e xp re ss o r

in tim a te h is o pin io n a s to wh a t h a s o r h a s n o t b e e n p ro v e d o r a s to th e g u ilt o f

th e a c c u se d .” Th e q u e stio n

, h o we ve r, is n o t wh e th e r a ju d g e ’s re m a rk

, p lu c k e d

f r o m t h e tra n sc rip t, m ig h t b e re a d a s a c o m m e n t o n th e p ro o f. In ste a d

, th e

q u e stio n is wh e th e r, wh e n th e c h a lle n g e d re m a rk is c o n sid e re d in its fu ll c o n te x t

,

a “ re a so n a

b le ju ro r w o u ld ha v e in te rp re te d t h e t r ia l c o u rt’s re m a rk a s th e

e x p re ssio n o f a n o p in io n o n a n y issu e to b e d e c id e d in th e c a se .” Hu fste tle r v

.

S ta te

, 2 74 Ga

. 3 4 3

, 34 5 (5 5 3 S E2 d 8 01 ) (2 00 1). S e e a lso Du b o se v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4

Ga

. 5 7 9

, 5 8 6 (7 5 5 S E2 d 1 7 4 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ Vie we d in c o n te x t, n o re a so n a b le ju ro r

wo u ld c o n stru e th e c ou rt’s in stru c tio n o n id e n tific a tio n to b e a c o m m e n t u p o n

th e e v id e n c e .” ). As d e m o n stra te d in Div isio n 1 b e lo w, wh e n th e sin gle p h ra se

c h a lle ng e d in th is a

p p e a l is v ie we d n o t in iso la tio n

, b u t ra th e r in th e fu ll c o n te x t

o f Ro u se ’s tria l, it b e c o m e s c le a r th a t re a so n a b le ju ro rs wo u ld n o t h a v e

u n d e rsto o d th e tria l c o u rt to b e e x p re ssin g its op in io n on wh e th e r v e n u e wa s o r

2wa s no t pro v e d in th is c a se

. Th e m a jo rity ’s d e c isio n to th e c o n tra ry re pre se n ts

a n o v e l a n d un w a rra n te d e x p a n sio n o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7

.

Th e re is a n o th e r im

p orta n t p o in t to m a k e

. As disc u sse d fu r t h e r in

Div isio n 2 b e lo w, if ju dic ia l c o m m e nts lik e th e o n e a t issu e in th is c a se a re to

b e d e e m e d e rro r u n d e r OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7, th e n th e tim e h a s c o m e fo r th e Ge n e ra l

Asse m bly to se rio usly c o n sid e r a m e nd in g th e re m e dia l se c tio n o f th is sta tu te

.

Th e se c o n d se n te n c e of § 1 7 -8 -5 7 sa y s:

S h o uld a n y j u d g e v io la te th is Co de se c tio n

, th e v io la tio n sh a ll b e

h e ld b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls to b e e rro r a nd th e

d e c isio n in th e c a s e r e v e r s e d

, a n d a ne w tria l g ra n te d in th e c o u rt

b e lo w with su c h d ire c tio n s a s th e S u pre m e Co u r t or Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls m a y la wfu lly giv e

.

Th is Co u rt h a s h e ld th a t a n e rro r u n d e r § 17 -8 -5 7 m a n da te s re v e rsa l o f a

c o n v ic tio n a n d a n e w tria l e v e n if th e d e fe n d a n t d id no t o b je c t to th e e rro r a t tria l

a n d e v e n i f t h e r e is n o sh o win g th a t th e e rro r c a u se d th e d e fe nd an t a n y a c tu a l

p re ju d ic e

. S e e We lls v . S ta te , 2 95 Ga . 1 6 1 , 1 6 7 (7 5 8 S E2 d 5 9 8 ) (2 0 14 ). Th is

“ su p e r-p la in -e rro r” sta nd a rd o f a pp e lla te re v ie w, se e id

. , is e x t r e m e ly u n u su a l

in Ge org ia la w (a n d in Am e ric a n la w), a n d it c a n le a d to u n ju st re su lts. Th a t is

th e situ a tio n in th is c a se

, wh e re it is h ig h ly p ro b a b le th a t th e tria l c o urt’s re m ark

,

e v e n if de e m e d im

p ro p e r, d id n o t c o n trib u te to th e ju ry ’s g u ilty v e rd ic ts, sin c e

3th e S ta te re a d ily p ro ve d th a t v e n u e wa s p ro p e r in Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty

, th e d e fe nse

n e v e r d isp u te d th a t p ro o f, a n d Ro u se o th e rwise re c e iv e d a fu ll a n d fa ir tria l.

Alth o u g h it is n ot c o n stitu tio n a lly re q uire d a n d d e p a rts fro m th e c o m m o n

la w tra d itio n a n d th e p o lic y o f so m e sta te s a n d th e fe d e ra l c o u rts, th e first

se n te nc e o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 re fle c ts Ge o rg ia ’s lo n g sta n d in g p o lic y o f p ro h ib itin g tria l

ju d g e s fro m ex p r e ssin g th e ir o p in io n s o n th e g u ilt o f th e d e fe n d a nt a n d th e

e v id e n c e p re se n te d a t tria l. Th e re a re g oo d a rg u m e nts fo r c o n tin u in g th a t p o lic y

,

a n d th e re a re g o o d a rg u m e n ts fo r re v e rsin g c o n v ic tio n s a n d re q u irin g n e w tria ls

wh e n ju d g e s h a v e m a d e c o m m e n ts th a t c a u se d th e d e fe n da n t a c tu a l p re ju d ic e

a n d th u s m a d e th e o u tc om e of th e tria l u n r e l i a b le a nd u n fa ir. Bu t o th e r th a n

“ th is is h o w we h a v e a lwa y s d o n e it”

– a n d a c tu a lly we ha v e n o t a lwa y s d o n e

it th is wa y

– I se e no g o o d a rg u m e n ts fo r re v e rsin g c o n v ic tio n s in e v e ry sin g le

c a se w h e re a ju d g e vio la te d § 1 7 -8 -5 7, e ve n wh e re

– a s in th is c a se

– th e

v io la tio n u n d o u b te d ly c a use d n o h a rm to th e d e fe n d a n t

. Afte r a ll, we d o n o t

a u to ma tic ally re v e rse c o nv ic tio n s wh e n a tria l c ou rt v io la te s in n um e ra ble o th e r

im p o rta n t sta tu to ry p o lic ie s, su c h a s th e ru le s o f e v id e n c e

, or e ve n wh e n a tria l

c o u rt v io la te s c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n ts; su c h e rro rs a re a lm o st a lwa y s su b je c t

to ha rm le ss-e rro r re vie w. P a rtic u la rly if th is Co u rt

– a n d b e c a u se of th e b in d in g

4e ffe c t o f o u r p re c e d e nts, e v e ry c o u rt i n Ge o rg ia

– a p p lie s th e first se n te n c e o f

§ 17 -8 -5 7 a s e x p a n siv e ly a s t h e m a jo rity h a s d o n e in th is c a se

, it se e m s

a p p ro p ria te fo r th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly to re p e a l th e se c o n d se n te n c e o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7

a n d a llo w vio la tio n s o f th is sta tu te to b e tre a te d lik e v io la tio n s of o th e r sta tu te s.

1

. Vie win g th e Ch a lle n g e d Re ma rk in I t s F u ll Co nte x t, th e Tria l

Co urt Did No t Vio la te OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7

.

Ro u se c h a lle n g e s o n e p o rtio n o f o n e se n te n c e sa id b y th e tria l c o u rt d u rin g

its p re lim in a

ry in stru c tio n s to th e fu ll v e n ire

, b e fo re th e v o i r d i r e q u e stio n in g

b e g a n a t th e sta rt o f wh a t tu rn e d o u t to b e a th re e -d ay tria l. Th e c h a lle n g e d

p h ra se is p u lle d fro m th e fo llo win g p a ssa g e fo u n d o n p a g e 1 7 o f th e 5 1 9 -p a g e

tria l tra n sc rip t

– th e se c o n d p a g e a fte r th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs we re b ro ug h t in to

th e c o u rtro o m :

Th is p ro c e ss th is m orn in g is wh a t[] we c a ll v oir d ire

. Vo ir d ire ju st

sim p ly m e a ns t o s p e a k th e tru th

. Th is m e a n s th a t y o u will b e

h e a rin g a b o u t a c a se

, wh ic h is a m u rd e r c a se

, th a t h a

p pe n e d in

Mu sc og e e Co u n ty , a

n d y o u ’ll b e a sk e d q u e stio n s a b o u t th is c a se

.

Ro u se d id n o t o b

je c t u n d e r O CGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 to th is or a n y o th e r sta te m e n t m a d e

b y th e c o u rt d u rin g th e tria l, n o r d id h e ra ise a n y § 1 7 -8 -5 7 issu e in h is m o tio n

fo r n e w tria l, a n d e v e n n o w h e do e s n o t c o n te n d th a t th e tria l c ou rt e v e r

e x p re ss e d a n o p in io n “ a s to th e g u ilt of th e a c c u se d .” Bu t on a p p e a l Ro use

5a rg u e s th a t th e p h ra se “ a c a se

. . . th a t ha p p e ne d in Mu sc o ge e Co u n ty ” e x p re sse d

th e c o urt’s “ o p in io n ” th a t v e n u e w a s p ro v e d to b e pro p e r in Mu sc o g e e Co u nty

.

Wh e n t h a t p h ra se is c o n sid e re d in th e fu ll c o nte x t of th is tria l, it b e c o m e s

a p p a re n t th a t re a so n a

b le ju ro rs wo u ld n o t h a ve u n de rsto o d th e tria l c o u rt to b e

e x p re ssin g its o p in io n o n wh e th e r ve n u e w a s o r wa s n o t p ro v e d in th is c a se

– in

d istin c t c o n tra st to th e ju dic ia l c o m m e n ts o n v e n u e th a t th is Co urt h e ld to b e

im p ro p e r in P a te l a n d An d e rso n

.

(a ) Th e Ch a lle n g e d Re ma rk C o n sid e re d in Its Imme d

i a t e

Co nte x t.

We n o rm a lly lo o k first to th e im m e d ia te c o n te xt o f th e c h a lle n g e d re m ark

.

I n P a t e l, th e tria l c o u rt u n e q u iv o c a lly e x p re sse d its o p in io n th a t v e nu e wa s

e sta b lish e d a n d in de e d to ld th e ju ry th a t th e d e fe n d a n t wo u ld n o t b e e ntitle d to

d isp u te v e n u e : “ th e tria l c o u rt, in re sp o n se to o pe n in g s t a t em e n t b y d e fe nse

c o u n se l, in te rru p te d c o un se l a n d sta te d

, ‘Th a t’s in c o rre c t. T h a t is n o t a d e fe nse

to th is c a se

. Ve n u e is p ro p e r in F a y e tte Co u n t y o r we wo u ld n ’t b e h e re rig h t

n o w.’” P a te l, 28 2 Ga

. a t 4 1 3

. L i k e w ise

, in A n d e rso n

, th e ju d ic ia l c o m m e n ts

fo u n d to v io la te § 1 7 -8 -5 7 e x p re ssly a n d un e q u iv o c a lly re fe rre d to th e p ro o f o f

v e n u e

– th e tria l c o u rt in te rru p te d th e p ro se c u to r’s e x a m in a tio n of a witn e ss to

6a sk se v e ra l qu e stio n s a b o u t ve n u e ; th e n a sk e d th e p ro se c u to r, “ Did we e sta b lish

v e n u e o n th is o n e ? ” ; a n d c o n c lu d e d

, “ A ll rig ht. I kn ow we h a d so m e c o n fu sio n

b e c a u se sh e h a d wo rk e d a t o ne sto re a nd sh e ’s n o w wo rk in g in a n o th e r o n e . I

ju st wa n te d to m a k e su re .” An d e rso n, 2 8 7 Ga . a t 1 60

.

In th is c a se

, b y c o n tra st, th e tria l c o u rt’s c h a lle n g e d re m a rk d id n o t

m e n tio n “ ve nu e ” a n d wa s m a d e in th e c o nte x t o f th e “ c a se ” th a t th e p ro sp e c tiv e

ju ro rs wo u ld la te r b e “ h e a rin g a b o u t.” Th e c o u rt to ld th e po te n tia l ju ro rs th a t

th e y wo u ld b e h e a rin g a

bo u t (1 ) “a c a se

. . . th a t h a p p e ne d in Mu sc o g e e Co u nty ”

a n d (2 ) “ a m

urd e r c a se ”

– o r, to p u t th e m o d ifie rs in th e o p p osite o rd e r

, a

“ Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty c a se ” a n d “ a c a se o f m u rd e r.” In th is c o n t e x t

, “ c ase ”

c o n n o te s th e la wsu it a t h a n d

– th e c la ims th a t th e S ta te h a s m a d e a g a in st th e

d e fe n d a n t, th e tru th of wh ic h t h e ju ry will h a v e to d e c id e ; an d th e a dje c tiv e s

u se d to d e sc rib e th e “ c a se ” a re n o t mo s t n a t u ra lly u n d e rsto o d to re p re se n t

e sta b lish e d fa c ts

, b u t ra th e r c o nte n tio n s p re se n te d by th e su it fo r th e j u ry ’s

d e te rm in a tio n

. S e e Bla c k ’s La w Dic tio n ary (9 th e d. 2 0 0 9 ) (d e fin in g “c a se ” a s

“ [a ] c iv il o r c rim in a l p ro c e ed i n g

, a c tio n

, su it, o r c o n tro v e rsy a t la w o r in

e q u ity .” ). On e m ig h t c a ll th is “ a c a se

. . . th a t a lle g e d ly h a p p e ne d in Mu sc o g e e

Co u n ty ” a n d “ a n a l le

g e d m u rd e r c a se ,” b u t th a t is u n n e c e ssa ry a n d e v e n

7a wk wa rd

, b e c a use “c a se ” in th is c o n te x t im p lie s “ a lle g e d.” No ta

bly

, t h e t r i a l

c o u rt d id n o t te ll th e ju ry th a t “ th e mu rd e r ‘h a pp e n e d in Mu sc o ge e Co u n ty ’” o r

th a t th e “ c rime ‘h a

p p e n e d in Mu sc og e e Co u n ty ,’” a s th e m a jo r i t y o p in io n

re p e a te d ly m isc h a ra c te riz e s th e c o u rt’s sta te m e n t. Ma j. Op

. a t 1 , 6 , 1 0 , 1 1

.

Th is c on no ta tio n o f th e wo rd “ c a se ” is su p p o rte d b y th e tria l c o u rt’s o th e r

u se o f th e wo r d i n t h e s a me se n te n c e

– in th e p hra se “a mu rd e r c a se ,” wh ic h

c a m e sm a c k in th e m id d le o f th e p hra se “ a c a se

. . . th a t h a p p e ne d in Mu sc o g e e

Co u n ty

. ” Ro u se a rg u e s (n o w) th a t b y re fe rrin g t o “ a c a se th a t h a p p e n e d in

Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty ,” th e c o u rt wa s c le a rly e x p re ssin g its o p in io n th a t th e e v e n ts

in q u e stio n in fa c t h a

pp e n e d in Mu sc o ge e Co u n ty

. If th a t is so

, th e n b y te llin g

th e ju ry th a t th is wa s “a m u rd e r c a se ,” th e c o u rt wa s a lso c le arly e x p re ssin g its

o p in io n t h a t t h e e v e n ts in q u e stio n in fa c t in v o lv e d a m urd e r. Ye t Ro u se ha s

n e v e r c o n te n d e d (e v e n o n a p pe a l) th a t th e c o urt e x p re sse d a n im p ro pe r o p in io n

o n th e issu e o f m

u rd e r – e v e n th o u gh wh e t h e r t h e k i llin g in th is c a se wa s a

m u rd e r wa s th e d isp u te d issu e fo r th e ju ry to de te rm in e

. Ro u se n e v e r d isp u te d

th e S ta te ’s e v id e n c e th a t th e v ic tim wa s ro b b e d a n d k ille d in Mu sc o g e e Co u nty

,

a n d h e a d m itte d k illin g th e v ic tim ; th e fo c u s of h is de fe nse wa s th a t th e k illin g

wa s n o t “ m

u rd e r” b u t ra th e r “ v o lu n ta ry m an sla u g h te r.” Th u s, wh ile th e c o u rt’s

8o p in io n th a t v e n u e wa s p ro p e r wo u ld h a v e b e e n m e an in g le ss to th e ou tc o m e o f

th e tr i a l

, th e c o u rt’s o p in io n th a t wh a t ha p p e n e d w a s a m

u rd e r wo u ld h a v e

d ire c tly u n d e rm in e d h is d e fe n se th e o ry

.

In su m

, c o n sid e re d in a c o n te x t wh e re “ h e a rin g a b o u t a c a se ” sig n a ls wh a t

s o rt of d isp u te th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs h a v e b e e n su m m on e d to d e c id e

, th e tri a l

c o u rt’s sta te me n t th a t th e ju ro rs w o u ld b e “ h e a rin g a b o u t a c a se

. . . th a t

h a p p e n e d in Mu sc o g e e Co u nty ” wa s b y n o m e a n s “ c le a rly a n d u n a m b ig u o u sly ”

a n e x p re ssio n o f th e c o u rt’s o p in io n “ th a t v e nu e in Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty h a d b e e n

e s t ab l i s h e d o r wa s n o t in d isp u te in th is c a se .” Ma j. Op

. a t 4 -5

. Th i s i s

d e m o n stra te d b y th e fa c t th a t Ro u se a p p a r e n tly se e s n o p ro b le m with th e tria l

c o urt’s sta te m e nt th a t th e ju ro rs wo u ld b e “ h e a rin g a bo ut

. . . a m

u rd e r c a s e

. ”

In d e e d

, if ou r ru le is to b e th a t a tria l c o urt h a s e x p re sse d a n o p in io n to th e ju ry

a b o u t wh a t h a s be e n p ro ve d a n y tim e th e c o u rt u se s th e wo rd “ c a se ” a lo n g with

a m o d ifie r d e sc rib in g a n e le m e n t o f th e d i s p u t e with o u t a d d in g th e e x p lic it

q u a lifie r “ a lle g e d ,” th e n c lo se re v ie w o f th e tra n sc rip t o f m a n y c rim in a l t r i als

m a y re v e a l v io la tio n s o f OCGA § 1 7

- 8

- 5 7

, m a n d a tin g a u to m a tic re v e rsa l. In

th is re sp e c t, I n ote th a t th e tria l c o u rt h e re a lso to ld th e v e n ire

– o n th e tra n sc rip t

p a ge b e fo re th e c ha lle n g e d re m a rk

– th a t a ll “ fe lo n y c a se s m u st be trie d in [ a ]

9S u p e rio r Co u rt” lik e th e o n e th e y we re in

, a n d th a t “ [t] h is we e k w e a r e t r y in g

c rimin a l c a s e s.” Do e s th is m e a n th a t th e tria l c o u rt e x p re sse d its o p in io n th a t

Ro u se h a d c o m m itte d a

“ fe lo n y ” a n d wa s a

“ c rim in a l” ?

(b ) T h e Ch a lle n g e d Re ma rk Co n sid e re d in th e Co n te

x t o f

Pre limin a ry J

u ry In stru c tio n s.

Th e c o n te x t a lso in c lu d e s th e fa c t th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s c h a lle n ge d re m a rk

c a m e d u rin g its m o st p re lim in a ry in stru c tio n s to th e v e n ire

, b e fo re th e v o ir d ire

q u e stio n in g h a d e ve n sta rte d

. I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity o p in io n th a t OCGA §

1 7 -8

- 5 7 a p p lie s b y its te rm s to th e e n tire tria l, in c lu d in g th e ju ry se le c tio n

p ro c e ss, a n d th us p o te n tia lly to a n y sta te m e n t th a t th e c ou rt m a ke s to th ose wh o

u ltim a te ly se rv e o n th e tria l ju ry

. S e e Ma j. Op

. a t 8

. Ho we v e r, th e

p re lim in a ry -in stru c tio n c o n te x t is h ig h ly re le v a n t to h ow re a so n a b le ju ro rs

wo u ld u n d e rsta n d wh a t th e c o u rt h e re sa id

– w h e th e r th e c o u rt wa s e xp re ssin g

its “ o p in io n ” a

b o u t th e p ro of o f a m a te ria l fa c t, e ve n th ou g h n o p ro o f h a d y e t

b e e n o ffe re d o r e ve n disc u sse d

, o r wh e th e r th e c o u rt’s sta te m e n t w a s m e re ly a n

in tro d u c to ry d e sc rip tio n o f w h a t ty p e o f c on tro ve rsy th e ju ro rs wo u ld b e

d e c id in g if se le c te d to se rv e

.

Th e p re fa to ry c o m m e n t c h a lle n g e d h e re is in d istin c t c o n t r a s t to P a te l,

10wh e re th e tria l c o u rt sta te d its d e fin itiv e op in io n th a t “ [v ] e nu e is p r o p e r in

F a y e tte Co u n ty ” d u rin g th e d e f e n se op e n in g sta te m e n t, pre c lu d in g d e fe nse

c o u n se l’s e ffo rts to te ll th e ju ry w h a t to e x p e c t a s e v id e n c e o n th a t issu e

, se e 2 8 2

Ga

. a t 4 1 3

, a

n d An d e rso n, w h e re th e tria l c o urt’s sta te m e n ts a b o u t pro o f o f

v e n u e we re in te rje c te d in to a witn e ss’s te stimo n y a b o u t wh e re th e c rim e s

o c c u rre d

, se e 2 8 7 G a

. a t 1 5 9 -1 6 0

. It sh o u ld b e n ote d th a t, in th e 15 0 -y e a r

h isto ry o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 a n d its p re d e c e sso rs, th e re a p pe a rs to b e n o t a sin g le

c a se wh e re th e re v ie w in g c o u rt h as a c tu a lly fo un d a v io la tio n with re g a rd to

p re lim in a ry ju ry in stru c tio n s. S e e

, e

. g

., Lin so n v

. S ta te

, 2 8 7 Ga

. 8 8 1

, 8 8 4 (7 0 0

S E2 d 3 9 4 ) (2 0 1 0 )

, a n d th e c a se s c ite d o n p a g e s 8 -1 0 o f th e m a jo rity o p in io n

.

S e e a lso Atk in s v. Sta te

, 2 5 3 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 69

, 1 7 0-1 71 (5 5 8 S E2 d 7 5 5 ) (2 0 0 2 )

(fin din g s e v e r a l sta te m e n ts m a d e to th e ju ry b y th e c o u rt b e fo re th e e v id e n c e

wa s p re se n te d d id n o t a m ou n t to im p ro p e r o p in io ns).

(c ) Th e Ch a lle n g e d Re m a rk Co n sid e re d in th e Co n te

x t o f th e

J u ry In stru c tio n s a s a Wh o le

.

Th e c o n te x t a lso im

p orta n tly in c lu d e s wh a t th e tria l c ou rt to ld th e ju ro rs

th ro u g h o u t th e t r i a l a b o u t ho w th e y sh o uld de c id e th e c a se

. S e e S im m o n s v

.

S ta te

, 2 9 1 Ga

. 7 0 5

, 7 0 8 (7 3 3 S E2 d 2 8 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (e x p la in in g th a t OCGA § 1 7 -8

-

115 7 “ ‘is vio la te d o n ly wh e n th e tria l c o u rt’s in stru c tio n , c o n sid e re d a s a wh o le

,

a ssu m e s c e rta in th in g s a s fa c ts a n d in tim a te s to th e ju ry wh a t th e ju d g e b e lie ve s

th e e v id e n c e to be ’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )); Mu llin a x v. S ta t e

, 2 5 5 Ga

. 4 4 2

, 4 4 5

( 3 3 9 S E 2 d 7 0 4 ) (1 9 8 6) (“ In o rd e r to d e te rm in e wh e th e r a tria l c o u rt h a s

im p ro p e rly e x p re sse d a n op in io n in its c ha rg e a s to wh a t h a s o r h a s n o t b e e n

p ro v e d

, th e wh o le c ha rg e m a y b e c on sid e re d.” ). S e e g e n e ra lly F ra n k lin v

. S ta te

,

2 9 5 Ga

. 2 0 4

, 2 0 8 (7 5 8 S E 2 d 81 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ O n a p pe a l, we re a d th e ju ry c h a rg e s

a s a wh ole to de te rm in e th e p re se n c e o f a ny e rro r.” ). To b e su re , th is d o e s n o t

m e a n th a t a tria l c o u rt c a n c u re a c le a r v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

– th e so rt

o f p la in ly im

p ro pe r e x p re ssio n o f o p in io n ma d e i n P a te l o r An de rso n

– with

a d d itio n a l ju ry in stru c tio n s. S e e P a te l, 2 82 Ga

. a t 4 1 5

. In d e e d

, th e tria l c o u rt’s

re c o g n itio n th a t it h a s im p ro p e rly e x p re sse d a n o p in io n

, a nd its su b se q u e n t

e ffo rts to sp e c ific a lly in stru c t to th e ju ry to d isre g ard wh a t wa s sa id

, a s o c c u rre d

in P a te l, se e id

. a t 4 1 3 & n.3

, c o n stitu t e s t ro n g e v id e n c e th a t th e re wa s a

v io la tio n o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7.

Bu t wh e re

, a s h e re

, it is n o t c le a r th a t wh a t th e tria l c o u rt sa id c o uld o n ly

b e c o nstru e d a s a n im

p ro p e r e x p re ssio n o f o p in io n

, th e n h o w re a so n a b le ju ro rs

wo u ld h a v e u n d e r s t o o d w h a t th e c o u rt sa id m a y b e in fo rm e d by th e o th e r

12in stru c ti on s th e c o u rt g a v e th e m

. Th u s, in c o nc lu d in g th a t c o m m e n ts b y tria l

c o u rts d id n o t v io la te § 1 7-8 -5 7

, Ge o rg ia ’s a p p e lla te c o u rts h a v e ro u tin e ly ta k e n

n o te o f in stru c tio n s th a t th e ju ry sh o u ld n o t in fe r fro m th e c ou rt’s sta te m e n ts th a t

it wa s e x p re ssin g a

n op in io n o n g u ilt o r e v id e n c e . S e e , e .g ., Ja rn ig a n v . S ta te

,

2 9 5 Ga

. 6 0 3

, 6 0 5 (7 6 1 SE2 d 2 5 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ Mo re o v e r, th e tria l c o u rt in th is c a se

c a u tio n e d th e ju ry th a t ‘[b ] y n o ru lin g or c o m m e n t th a t th e [c ] o u rt h a s m a d e

d u rin g th e p ro g re ss o f th e tria l h a s th e [c ] o u rt in te n de d to e x p re ss a n y o p in io n

u p o n t h e f

a c ts o f th e c a se

, u p o n th e c re d ib ility o f th e witn e sse s, u p o n th e

e v id e n c e [,] o r u p o n t h e g u ilt o r in n o c e n c e o f th e d e fe n d a n ts.’” (c ita tio n

o m itte d )); Ellis v

. Sta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 2 7 6

, 2 8 2 (7 3 6 S E2 d 4 12 ) (2 01 3 ) (sa m e

, c itin g

a d d itio n a l c a se s); L in so n

, 2 8 7 Ga

. a t 8 8 4 (c itin g a d d itio n a l c a se s). Th e

d isc u ssio n o f su c h in stru c tio ns in th e se c a se s

– an d th e re a re m a n y m o re

– wa s

a n a d d itio n a l re a so n g iv e n fo r th e h o ld in g th a t § 1 7 -8 -5 7 wa s n o t v io la te d

, n o t

m e re d ic ta a s th e m a

jo rity su g g e sts. S e e Ma

j. Op

. a t 1 0

. In d e e d

, a s th e m a jo rity

g o e s o n to a c k n o wle d g e

, “ a c o u rt’s o th e r sta te m e nts o r i n s t r uc tio n s c an a ffe c t

th e c o n te x t a n d

, th e re fo re

, th e me a n i n g o f a c o u rt’s sta te m e nt,” w h e re th e

sta te m e n t in q u e stio n is n o t a n u n e q u iv o c a l v io la tio n o f § 17 -8 -5 7

. Ma j. Op

. a t

1 1

.

13Ac c o rd in g ly

, wh a t th e tria l c o u rt h e re to ld th e ju ro rs, a lm o st imm e d ia te ly

a fte r m a kin g th e c h a lle n g e d sta te m e n t a n d th e n re p e a te d ly th ro u g h o u t th e tria l,

p ro v id e s v a lu a

b le in sig h t in to wh e th e r, wh e n it c a m e tim e f o r t h o s e ju ro rs to

d e c id e th e c a se

, th e y re a so n a b ly wo u ld h a v e u nd e rsto o d t h e c ou rt’s re m ark

,

m a d e a b o u t two m in u te s a fte r th e y first e n te re d th e c o u rtro o m a s p ro sp e c tiv e

ju ro rs two d a y s b e f

o re

, th a t th e y “ will b e he a rin g a b o u t a c a se

, wh ic h is a

m u rd e r c a se

, th a t h a

p p e n e d in Mu sc o g e e Co un ty ,” t o b e an e x p re ssio n o f th e

c o u rt’s “o p in io n ” th a t v e n u e in Mu sc o g e e Co u nty h a d be e n p ro v e d

. Un lik e in

P a te l

, t h e r e is no in d ic a tio n th a t th e c o u rt (o r a n y o n e e lse in th e c ou rtro o m )

th o u g h t th a t th e c ou rt h a d e x p re sse d a n o pin io n o n th e p ro o f a n d t h en t r i e d to

c u re it.

In ste a d

, wh a t th e re c o rd h e re sh ows (with e m p h a sis a d d e d ) is th a t, in th e

v e ry sa m e tra n sc rip t p a ra g ra p h a s th e c ha lle n g e d re m a rk

, th e c o u rt in stru c te d th e

v e n ire :

Th e b o tto m lin e [o f th e v o ir dire p ro c e ss] is if a ny o n e o f y o u a re o n

tria l, y o u wo u ld wa n t twe lv e in div id u a ls to b e to ta lly im p a rtia l a n d

liste n to th e f

a c t s an d th e n ma k

e a de te rmin a tio n b a se d o n th e

e v id e n c e a n d n o t o n a n y p re c on c e iv e d fe e lin g s a b o u t th e c a se

.

Two p a g e s l a t e r i n th e tra n sc rip t, b e fo re th e vo ir d ire q u e stio n in g b e g a n

, th e

14c o u rt in stru c te d th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs th a t Ro u se h a s

b e e n in d ic te d by th e Gra n d Ju ry o f Mu sc o g e e Co u n ty fo r two

c o u n ts o f m

u r d e r

, o n e fe lo n y m

u rd e r a n d o n e m a lic e m

u rd e r, a n d

a lso a c h a rg e o f ro bb e ry

. He c o m e s in to c o u rt w ith o u r p re su m p tio n

o f in n o c e n c e

, a n d th a t pre su m p tio n sta y s with h im th ro u gh ou t th e

tria l. An d th e Distric t Atto rn e y ’s o ffic e , b y a n d th ro u g h e v id

e n c e

, witn e sse s, h as to p ro v e e a c h an d e v e ry e le m e n t o f t h e in dic tme n t

. If th e y d o n o t, th e n o f c o u rse th e c a se will b e t h r o w n ou t o r

d ism isse d or fo u n d n ot g u ilty

. An d t h a t b u rd e n re sts o n th e S ta te

a n d n e v e r sh ifts to th e de fe n d a n t.

. . . T h e b u rd e n is o n [

th e

p ro se c u to r] to pro v e th is c a se a n d p ro v e th e . . . th re e c h arg e s

. 1

T h e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs we re th e n a sk e d th e sta tu to ry qu a lific a tio n q ue st i o n s

.

De sp ite h a v in g re c e n tly h e a rd wh a t Ro use a n d th e m a jo rity op in io n a sse rt wa s

th e c o u rt’s “ o p in io n ” o n a “ cr i t i c a l e le m e nt” of th e c rim e s, no ne o f th e ju ro rs

in d ic a te d th a t th e ir m in d wa s n o t “ p e rfe c tly im p artia l b e twe e n th e S ta te a n d th e

a c c u se d in th is c a se .”

Afte r th e tria l ju ry h a d b e e n se le c te d a n d swo rn , th e c o u rt re ite ra te d th a t

1 The majority

opinion asserts that the trial court’s challeng ed remark “was not made in the

contex t of the court’s ex p lanation of the alleg ations of the indictment or the State’s burden of proof.”

Maj. Op. at 9. I n reviewing jury charg es “as a whole,” however, this Court commo n l y considers

instructions separated b y many more than two pag es in the trial transcript. See, e.g

. , Murray v. State,

295 Ga. 289, 292-293 (759 SE2d 525) (2014) (when deciding whether one of the trial court’s jury

instructions violated § 17-8-57, considering all instructions g iven by the court in the j u ry charg e,

including all instructions g iven before and after the challeng e d one); Dukes v. State, 290 Ga. 486,

486 (722 SE2d 701) (2012) (when deciding whether the trial court’s answer to a q uestion asked by

the jury a fter deliberation beg an was proper, considering the re-charg e along with the instructions

g iven in the court’s orig inal charg e ).

15th e in d ic tm e n t wa s n o t e v id e n c e

,

b e c a u se b o th sid e s o f th e c a se h a sn ’t [sic ] b e e n he a rd y e t. Ju st pa rt

o f th e D.A.’s c a se h a s b e e n h e a rd

, a n d no ne o f th e d e fe n se c a se h a s

b e e n h e a rd in th e G ra n d Ju ry ro om

. S o th a t’s w h y y o u ’re h e re a n d

th a t’s wh y y o u ’ll ma k

e th a t d e te rmin atio n

, a

fte r y o u he a r a ll th e

fa c ts

. . . . [O] pe n in g sta te m e n ts is [sic ] n o t e v id e n c e

. W h a te v e r I

sa y u p h e re is n o t e v id

e n c e . T h e o nly e v id

e n c e y o u will b a se y o u r

d e c isio n on in th is c a se is wh a t is h e a rd fro m th e witn e ss sta n d

fro m

witn e sse s a n d

a n y e x hib its o r a ny . . . o th e r e v id e n c e th a t’s p u t in

.

Ju st b e fo re o p e n in g sta te m e n ts, th e c o u rt in stru c te d th e ju ry a g a in o n th e

p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e nc e

, th e S ta te ’s b u rd e n to p ro ve e a c h e le m e n t a n d m at e ria l

a lle g a tio n o f th e in d ic tm e n t, a n d th e ju ry ’s ro le in d e te rm in in g th e fa c ts b a se d

o n th e e v id e n c e pre se n te d in th e fo rm o f wit n e s s t e s tim on y a n d e xh ib its. Th e

c o u rt c o n c lu d e d: “ I in stru c t y o u

. . . y o u m u st d e c id e t h e c a se fo r y o u rse lf,

so le ly o n th e t e s t i mo n y y ou h e a r fro m th e witn e ss sta nd a n d th e e x h ib its

a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e .”

F in a lly

, d u rin g its in stru c tio n s to th e ju ry a fte r th e S ta te a n d th e d e fe nse

h a d p re se n te d th e ir e v id e n c e a n d a rg um e nts

– th e ir re sp e c tiv e “ c a se s”

– th e

c o u rt re ite ra te d th e d e fe n d a n t’s p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e

, th e S ta te ’s b u rd e n o f

p ro o f b a se d u p o n e v id e nc e

, a n d wh a t e v id e nc e in c lu d e s a n d d o e s n o t in c lu d e

,

sa y in g sp e c ific a lly

, “ It d o e s no t in c lu d e

. . . a n y c o m m e n t I’v e m a d e du rin g th e

16tria l.” Th e c ou rt re p e a te d t h a t a d m o n itio n la te r: “ By n o ru lin g or c o m m e n t

d u rin g th is tria l th a t th e Co urt h a s m a d e h a s th e Co u rt in te n d e d to e x p re ss a n y

o p in io n u p o n th e fa c ts o f th e c a se

, u p o n th e c re d ib ility of th e w itn e sse s, u p o n

th e e v id e n c e o r u p o n th e g u ilt o [f] th e Ac c u se d

– in no c e n c e of th e Ac c u se d .”

In su m

, th e ju ro rs w e re u n e q u iv o c a lly a nd re p e a te d ly in stru c te d th a t th e y

we re to de c id e th is c a se (i.e

., th is c o ntro v e rsy ) b a se d so l e l y o n t h e e v id e n c e

p re se nte d

, a n d th a t a n y th in g th e c o u rt sa id wa s n o t e v id e n c e o r a n o p in io n a b o u t

th e e v id e nc e

. “ Q u a lifie d ju ro rs u n d e r o a th a re p re su m e d to fo llo w th e

in stru c tio n s o f th e tria l c ou rt,” Da v is v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 4 86

, 4 88 (7 5 4 S E2 d 6 7 )

(2 0 1 4 ) (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d), a n d ju ro rs fo llo win g th e c o u rt’s

d e ta ile d in stru c tio ns in th is c a se wo u ld b e q u ite u n lik e ly to h a v e in te rp re te d th e

tria l c o u rt’s c h a lle n g e d re m a rk a s a n e x p re ssio n o f its o pin io n on pro o f o f v e n u e

.

(d ) Th e Ch a lle n g e d Re ma rk C o n sid e re d in th e C

o n t e x t o f th e

La c k o f Ob je c tio n a t Tria l a n d

o n Mo tio n fo r Ne w Tria l.

Th e c on te x t a lso in c lu d e s th e fa c t th a t Ro use ’s tria l c o un se l d id n o t o b je c t

to th e tria l c ou rt’s re m a rk wh e n it wa s m a d e or a t a ny p o in t th e re a fte r d u rin g th e

tria l, an d Ro u se ’s a

p p e lla te c o u nse l d id no t ra ise a n OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 c la im in

t h e m o tio n fo r n e w tria l. Th e re a lso is n o c la im th a t tria l c ou n se l pro v id e d

17in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e in a n y re sp e c t or th a t th e tria l c o urt c o m m itte d a n y o th e r

tria l e rro r; in d e e d, th e re c o rd in d ic a te s th a t th is c a se wa s c le a n ly trie d , an d th e

m o tio n fo r n e w tria l ra ise d o n ly th e g e n e ra l g ro u n d s.

Un d e r th is C o u rt’s m o re re c e n t d e c isio n s, se e Div isio n 2 ( a ) b e lo w,

Ro u se ’s fa ilu re to ra ise a § 1 7 -8 -5 7 c la im in t h e t r i al c ou rt d o e s n ot p re c lu d e

h im fro m ra isin g th e c la im o n a p p e a l. S e e W e lls, 2 9 5 Ga

. a t 1 6 7

. Bu t wh e re th e

tria l tra n sc rip t d o e s n o t re v e a l a n u n e qu iv o c a l e xp re ssio n o f ju d ic ia l o p in io n o n

p ro o f o r g u ilt, lik e th e im

p ro p e r o p in io n s o n v e nu e b la ta n tly e x p re sse d in P a te l

a n d An d e rso n

, w e m

u st lo ok fo r o t h e r c l u es a s to h o w th e ju ro rs in th e

c o u rtro o m in te rp re te d wh a t th e tria l c o u rt s a i d

. An d wh e n we do so

, it is

re le v a n t th a t th e p e rso n in th e c o u rtro o m m o st fo c u se d o n id e n tify in g tria l c o urt

e rro rs th a t c o u l d h a rm th e d e fe n d a n t

– Ro u se ’s tria l la wy e r

– a p p e a rs to h a v e

h e a rd no th in g wo r t h y of o b je c tio n

, a nd th a t th e p e rso n m o st fo c u se d o n

id e n tify in g tria l c o u rt e rro rs a fte r tria l

– Ro u se ’s a p p e lla te la w y e r

– a

p p a re n tly

n o tic e d n o o b vio u sly im

p ro pe r c o m m e n t in re v ie win g t h e t r a n s c r i p t fo r p u rp o se s

o f filin g th e m otio n fo r n e w tria l. Th is c a se is d iffe re nt fro m P a te l in th is re sp e c t

to o

, a s de fe n se c o u n se l th e r e o b j e c te d to th e tria l c ou rt’s u n q u e stio n a b ly

im p ro p e r c o m m e n t a s so on a s h is o p e n in g sta te m e n t w a s c o m p le te d a nd th e ju ry

18wa s re m o v e d . S e e 2 8 2 Ga . a t 4 1 3

.

(e ) Th e Ch a lle n g e d Re ma rk C o nsid e re d in th e Co n te

x t o f a n

Un d isp u te d Fa c t.

F in a lly

, th e c o n te xt o f th e c h a l l e n g e d re m a rk in c lu d e s th a t th e issu e o n

wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt a lle g e d l y e x p re sse d its o p in io n

– v e nu e

– w a s p ro v e d b y

th e Sta te a n d n e v e r d isp u te d b y th e d e fe nse a t tria l (n o r is it disp u te d o n a p p e a l).

Th e o n ly tim e th e p a rtie s a d d re sse d v e n u e wa s wh e n th e pro se c uto r a sk e d th e

S ta te ’s first witn e ss, a Co lu m b u s P o lic e Offic e r: “I h a te to a sk th e o b v io u s, b u t

fo r le ga l re a so n s I h a v e to

. Th a t a re a wh e re th e [v ic tim ’s] b od y w a s re c o v e re d

,

th a t’s in Co lu m

bu s, M u sc o g e e Co u n ty ? ” Th e o ffic e r a n swe re d

, “ Ye s

, s i r

. ”

Ro u se n e v e r c o n te ste d th a t te stim on y o r c h a lle n g e d v e n u e in a n y way

.

As re c e n tly a s 2 0 0 6

, th is Co u rt u na n im o us l y h e ld th e fo llo win g with

re sp e c t to OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 :

Co u rts of th is S ta te h av e alwa y s re c o gn ize d

. . . th a t a sta te me n t b y

a tria l c o u rt c o n c e rn in g a fa c t th a t is u n c o n te ste d o r i s n o t in

d isp u te d o e s n o t c o n stitu te a v io la tio n o f th is sta tu te

. In Bro wn v

. S ta te

, fo r e x a m

p le

, th e tria l c o u rt q u e stio n e d a witn e ss re ga rd in g th e

p h o t o g ra p h ic lin e u p th a t h a d b e e n p re se n te d to th e v ic tim

, a n d

, i n

d o in g s o

, in tim a te d its o p in io n th a t th e lin e u p wa s n o t u n du ly

su g g e stiv e

. [2 5 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 34 3

, 34 5 (5 5 4 S E2 d 3 2 1 ) (2 0 0 1 ).] Th e

Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls a ffirm e d th e c o nv ic tio n

, h owe v e r, b e c a u se th e

d e fe n da n t ne v e r c la im e d t h a t th e lin e u p wa s su g g e stiv e

. Th u s, th e

tria l c o u rt’s c o m m e nts d id n o t re q u ire a n e w tria l. [Id .]

19S a

u e rwe in v

. S ta te

, 2 80 G a

. 4 3 8

, 4 3 9 (6 2 9 SE2 d 2 35 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ;

fo o tn o te s d e le te d ). In su p p ort o f th is p ro p o sitio n

, th e C o u rt c ite d th e fo llo win g

se rie s o f Ge o rg ia

a p p e lla te d e c isio n s g o in g b a c k to 1 8 60 :

S e e

, e .g

. , Jo hn so n v

. S ta te

, 3 0 Ga

. 4 2 6

, 4 31 (5 ) (1 8 6 0 ) (n o t e rro r to

sta te a fa c t th a t is u n d isp u te d b y th e d e fe n se ); Mc C lo u d v

. S ta te

, 1 6 6 Ga

. 4 3 6, 4 4 4 (1 4 3 S E 5 5 8 ) (1 9 2 8 ) (“ [w] h ile th e ju d ge is

fo rb id de n to e x p re ss a n o p in io n a s to wh e th e r a n y p a rtic u la r fa c t h a s

b e e n p ro v e d

, y e t, wh e n th e e v id e n c e to e sta b lish a fa c t is

u n d isp u te d

, a nd th e fa c t is a d m itte d b y th e a c c u se d o n his tria l, it is

n o t e r r o r fo r th e ju d g e to [sta te th a t fa c t] to th e ju ry ” ); Th o m a s v

. S t at e

, 2 7 Ga

. Ap p. 3 8

, 4 0 (3 ) (1 0 7 S E 4 1 8) (1 9 2 1 ) (th e st at u t e

“ wh ic h p ro h ib its a tria l ju d g e fro m e x pre ssin g or in tim a tin g h is

o p in io n a s to wh a t h a s o r h a s n o t b e e n p ro v e d ‘ r e f e r s to th e

e x p re ssio n o r in tim a tio n o f a n op in io n to u c h in g so m e fa c t a t issu e

in th e c a se

, a n d n o t to so m e th in g th a t is c o n c e d e d b y b ot h

p a rtie s’” ); Mc Ke e v

. S ta te

, 2 7 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 6 4 6

, 6 5 0 (6 21 S E2 d 6 1 1 )

(2 0 0 5 ) (tria l c ou rt’s c o m m e n t o n u n d isp u te d fa c t wa s n o t a v io la tio n

o f th e sta tu te ).

S a u e rwe in

, 2 8 0 Ga

. a t 4 3 9 n .6

. Th e re a re m a n y a d ditio n a l c a se s th a t c o u ld a lso

b e c ite d fo r th is p ro p o sitio n

.

Mo re re c e n t d e c isio ns, h o we v e r, p a rtic u la rly th ose in v o lv in g a lle g e d

c o m m e n ts a

b o u t v e nu e

, a

p p e a r to d isre g a rd th is lo n g sta n d in g in te rp re ta tio n o f

§ 1 7 -8 -5 7

. Th u s, it h a s b e e n sa id th a t “ v e n u e is c h a lle n ge d wh e ne v e r a c rim in a l

d e fe n d a n t p le a d s n o t g u ilty to th e c h a rg e s in th e in d ic tm e n t.” By rd v

. S ta te

, 3 0 7

Ga

. Ap p

. 5 8 9

, 59 0

- 5 9 1 (7 0 5 S E2 d 6 9 0 ) (2 01 3) (c itin g Jo n e s v

. S ta te

, 2 7 2 Ga

.

209 0 0

, 90 1 -9 0 2 (5 3 7 S E2 d 80 ) (2 0 0 0 ), a n d P a te l, 2 8 2 Ga

. a t 4 1 4). Th is sta te m e n t

is tru e with re sp e c t to th e S ta te ’s b u rd e n a t tria l to p ro v e th e ju risd ic tio n a l fa c t

o f v e n u e b y m o re th a n “ slig ht e v id e n c e ”

– wh ic h wa s th e issu e in Jo n e s

. In d e e d

,

th e d e fe nd a n t’s n o t g u ilty p le a re q u ire s th e S ta te to p ro v e e v e ry fa c t m a te ria l to

th e c a se

, b e c a

u se th e S ta te h a s th e c o mp le te b u rd e n o f p ro o f in a c rim in a l c a se

a n d th e d e fe n d a n t n e e d n o t p ro v e a n y th in g

. 2

2 The majori t y o p i n i o n repeatedly calls venue a “ critical e lement” of the State’s case. I t is

important to recog niz e, however, that venue is not an “essential element” of the crimes charg ed. I f

it were, then the Double J eopardy Clause would bar retrial in cases where the State failed to present

sufficient evidence of venue a t the orig inal trial. See B urks v. U nited States, 4 37 U.S. 1, 10-11 (98

SCt 2141, 57 L E2d 1) (1978). This Court has correctly held, however, that venue is not a matter of

substantive criminal law

– o f the g uilt or innocence of the accused

– but rather a matter of criminal

procedure:

A reversal for improper venue is not a f actual determination concer n i ng the

sufficiency or insufficiency o f evidence that a defen d a nt committed a criminal act.

Rather, it is a reversal due to insufficient evidence to support conducting a trial in a

particular court’s domain. As such, it is more a p rocedural matter than any thing else.

J ones v. State, 272 Ga. 900, 905 ( 537 SE2d 80) (2000). According ly

, v enue is properly u nderstood

as merely a “jurisdictional fact” that the State must prove to establish th a t t h e c ase is being

prosecuted in the rig ht p lace. See, e.g

., B ulloch v. State, 2 93 Ga. 179, 187 (744 SE2d 7 63) (2013).

See also J ones, 272 Ga. at 901 (referring to venue as a “jurisdictional fact,” althoug h referring in the

same sentence to venue as “an essential element in p roving that one is g uilty of the c rime charg ed”

– contrary

to the Court’s double jeopardy discussion later in the same opinion).

I ndeed, while both our federal and state constitutions require proper venue in criminal cases,

see U .S. Const. amend. VI ; Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI

, Sec. I I

, Par. VI

, federal law r equires that the

prosecution p rove p roper venue by only a preponderance of the evidence, w hich would not be

permissible if venue were an e ssential element of a c rime. See, e.g

., United States v

. D e L a Cruz

Suarez

, 601 F 3d 1202, 1217 (11th Cir. 2010); W ilkett v. United States, 655 F 2 d 1007, 1011 (10th

Cir. 1981). Many states take the same view. See g e nerally Comment Note, Necessity of Proving

Venue or Territorial J urisdiction of Criminal Offense B ey ond Reasonable Doubt, 67 AL R3d 988,

§ 8 ( collecting cases). This Court has held many times that, “‘[ l] ike every o ther material alleg ation

in the indictment, [venue] must be proved [by the prosecution] b ey ond a r easonable doubt,’” J ones,

21Bu t th is is n o t wh a t wa s m e a n t b y “ c o n te ste d ” o r “ d isp u te d ” in th e c a se s

a p p ly in g § 17 -8 -5 7

, o r a t le a st in S a u e rwe in and th e m o re th a n a c e ntu ry o f

p re c e de n ts on wh ic h it re lie d

. To ma k e a j u d g e ’s c o m m e n t o n a fa c t c om e

with in th e sta tu te

, it is n o t e n o u gh th a t th e d e fe n d a nt m e re ly p le a d e d n ot g u ilty

.

If a t tria l th e S ta te o ffe rs e vid e n c e o f a fa c t s u f f i c ie n t to p ro v e it, a n d th e

d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o th in g to d isp u te th a t e v id e n c e

, th e n un d e r S a u e rwe in a n d o th e r

p re c e de n ts, a sta te m e n t b y th e c o u rt a b o u t th a t fa c t do e s n o t re q u ire re v e rsa l

u n d e r § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. Th is is tru e e v e n in c a se s wh e re th e d e fe n d a n t h a s n o t

fo rm a lly stip u la te d to th e fa c t o r a ffirm a tiv e ly a dm itte d th e fa c t d u rin g th e tria l.

S e e

, e .g

., Mc Clo ud

, 1 6 6 Ga

. a t 4 4 4 -4 4 5 (h o ld in g th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t e rr

in c h a rg in g th e ju ry th a t th e de fe n d a n t w a s in th e c u sto d y o f th e v ic tim o ffic e r

wh e n h e sh o t a n d k ille d th e o ffic e r, du e to th e “ u n d isp ute d e v id e n c e ” p re se n te d

a t tria l, in c lu d in g th e d e fe n d a n t’s p re -tria l s t a t e me n t to p olic e a d m ittin g th a t

fa c t); Ta y lo r v

. Sta te

, 1 3 5 Ga

. 6 2 2

, 6 2 5 -6 2 6 (7 0 S E 2 3 7 ) (1 9 1 1 ) (c on c lu d in g th a t

272 Ga. a t 901 (citation omitted), but it is not clear w hether this standard of proof comes from the

Constitution or the common law, especially when it is recog niz ed that venue is not a s u b s t a n t ive

element of crimes. The Georg ia rule traces back to this Court’s decision in Gosha v. State, 56 Ga.

36 (1876), which held that “ [ t] he venue of a crime must established clearly a nd b ey ond all reasonable

doubt.” I d

. at 36 hn.2. B ut Gosha did not e x plain the reason for that rule or cite any authority

, and

the G osha Court notably a lso based its decision to g rant a new trial on the hig hly offensive view that

“the c olored population of our state,

. . . o wing to their ig norance, as a g eneral rule, should have

justice administered to them tempered with much mercy .” I d. at 37.

22it wa s n o t e rro r fo r th e tria l c o u rt to e x p re ss its o p in io n th a t th e v ic tim wa s k ille d

b y a n un la wfu l h om ic id e b e c a u se th e u n d isp u te d e v id e n c e p ro v e d th a t fa c t a n d

th e d e fe n d a n t, wh o o ffe re d a n a lib i d e fe n se , re fe rre d to th e v ic tim ’s d e a th a s a

“ k illin g ” in h is sta te m e n t to th e ju ry ).

“ ‘It is n o t a v io la tio n o f th e sta tu te wh ic h p re v e n t s a t r i a l ju dg e o f th e

su p e rio r c o u rt fro m e x pre ssin g a n o p in io n a s to wh a t f a ct s h a v e b e e n p ro v e d

,

wh e re a fa c t sta te d by th e tria l ju d g e a s ha v in g be e n p ro v e d is e sta b lish e d b y

u n c on tra d ic te d te stim on y

. ’” S a u e rwe in

, 28 0 Ga

. a t 4 4 0 (q u o tin g R e n t z v

.

Co llin s, 5 1 Ga

. Ap p. 7 8 2

, 7 8 3 (1 8 1 S E 6 7 8 ) ( 1 9 3 5 ) )

. Th a t is p re c ise ly th e

situ a tio n in th is c a se (a ssu m in g th a t th e tria l c ou rt’s c h a lle ng e d re m a rk c a n e v e n

b e d e e m e d a

n o p in io n a s t o a f

a c t h a v in g b e e n p ro ve d ). No ta b ly

, th e issu e o f

v e n u e w a s d isp ute d in Pa te l, th e c a se th a t se e m s to h a v e sta rte d us d o wn th e p a th

a wa y fro m S a

u e rwe in

. S e e P a te l, 28 2 Ga

. a t 4 1 4 -4 1 5 (h o ld in g th a t th e § 1 7 -8

-

5 7 v io la tio n oc c u rre d w h e n th e c o u r t i n t e rru p te d d e fe n se c o u n se l’s o p e n in g

sta te m e n t, wh ic h wa s a

p p a re n tly tr y i n g t o ra ise a ve n u e d e fe n se b a se d o n a n

in te rp re ta tio n o f wh e re v e nu e is p ro p e rly la id fo r c h a rg e s o f o n -lin e so lic ita tio n

23a n d o b sc e n e c o n ta c ts). 3

Th e tra d itio n a l in te rp re ta tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 d isc u sse d a n d a p p lie d

in S a u e rwe in h a s m

uc h to c o m m e n d it. Lim itin g § 1 7 -8 -5 7 v io la tio n s to ju d ic ia l

e x p r e ssio n s o f o p in io n a b o u t m a tte rs th a t th e d e fe n d a n t a c tu a lly c o n te st s o r

d isp u te s i n s o me wa y d u rin g th e tria l p re v e n ts th e sta tu te fro m wo rk in g

in ju stic e s b y r e q u i rin g th e a u to m a tic re v e rsa l o f c o n v ic tio n s wh e re it is

3 I n our first venue-related § 17-8-57 case after Patel, we said:

The Court of Appeals correctly stated that in order to violate OCGA § 17-8-57, the

tr i a l c o u r t ’ s comments must pertain to a disputed issue of fact. [ citations omitted]

. Assuming

, ar gu endo, that the issue of venue w as disputed in this c ase,[ footnote 3]

we hold that the trial court did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57.

State v. Gardner, 2 86 Ga. 633, 634-635 (690 SE2d 164) (2010). That statement was consistent with

Sauerwein and prior precedent. However, in footnote 3, which was entirely dicta, w e asserted, based

on Patel, that Gardner’s plea of n ot g uilty constituted a challeng e to the alleg ation of venue in the

indictment; noted that during the final jury charg e the court stated, w ith ag reement from counsel f or

both parties, that “the only uncontested matter in this case is that venue properly lies in Muscog e e

County ” ; and then said that “[ t] he record does n ot establish the point at which v en u e became

uncontested, i.e., whether it occurred before or after the [ court’s] ex chang e reg arding venue at issue

here.” T his dicta appear s m i s gu i d e d in several respects, including in its sug g e stion that it is

necessary to determine if the f act “became undisputed” before the c ourt made the c omment at issue.

That proposition was not supported by citation of any authority ; t h e p recedents involving judicial

comments on undisputed facts do not eng ag e in this “timing ” analy sis; and apply ing it could create

biz arre r esults, like convictions being reversed or affirmed based entirely on whether the judg e said

something about a f

act in the sentence before or the sentence a fter the parties stipulated to the fact.

Notably

, if defense counsel had contemporaneously objected to the court’s statement in Gardner, the

parties would have had th e opportunity to clarify at that point whether the issue was or would be

disputed. Despite its dubious foundation, Gardner’s timing analy sis has been treated as d ispositive

b y t h e C o urt of Appeals. See B y rd, 307 Ga. App. a t 591-592 (reversing a conviction because t h e

trial c ourt ex p ressed an o p inion on proof of venue during the questioning of a witness, e ven thoug h

the p arties later ex pressly stipulated to venue and the court according ly instructed the jury that “You

w i l l t a k e a s p r oven without any further evidence that the events that are alleg e d in the bill of

indictment occurred in Tay lor County , Georg ia”).

24u n d e n ia

b l e th a t wh a te v e r th e c o u rt sa id a b o u t th e m a tte r h a d n o e ffe c t o n th e

v e rd ic t. To p u t th is c o n c e p t in th e la n g u a g e of th e s t at u te

, a ju d g e d o e s n o t

e x p re ss a n o

p in io n

– a “ b e lie f b a se d o n g ro un ds sh o rt o f p ro of” 4

– a s to wh a t ha s

o r h a s n o t b e e n p ro v e d

, wh e n th e ju d g e ’s sta te m e n t in v o lv e s a fa c t a s to wh ic h

th e S ta te h a s p re se n te d p ro o f th a t th e d e fe n d a n t d o e s no t d isp u te ; in th is

situ a tio n , th e ju d ge is sim p ly e x p re ssin g a fa c t

.

Bu t e v e n if we d o n o t g o b a c k to th e S a u e rwe in a pp ro a c h in d e c id in g th is

c a se

, o r if we try a s t h e ma jo rity d o e s to c arv e o u t a n e x c e p tio n fo r ju d ic ia l

c o m m e n ts o n th e ju risd ic tio n a l fa c t o f v e n ue

, se e Ma j. Op

. a t 7 n.2

, wh e th e r th e

d e fe n d a n t d i s p u t e d th e fa c t in q u e stio n du rin g th e tria l is

– a t a m in im u m

–

r e l e v a n t to h o w re a so n a b le ju ro rs wo u ld p e rc e iv e th e ju d g e ’s c h a lle n g e d

sta te m e n t a

b o u t th a t issu e

. If th e ju dg e we ig h s in e v e n o b liq u e ly o n a fa c t th a t

th e p a rtie s a re d isp u tin g

, it is m o re lik e ly th a t th e ju ro rs will ta k e a c c o u n t o f th e

ju d g e ’s sta te m e n t to h e lp th e m re so lv e th e d isp ute ; b u t if th e ju d g e m a k e s a n

e q u iv o c a l c om m e n t a

bo ut a p o in t th a t th e d e fe n se n e v e r c o n te sts

, it is m u c h le ss

lik e ly th a t th e ju ry will ta k e th e c o m m e n t a s a n “ op in io n ” o n wh a t h a s b e e n

p ro v e d o r n o t p ro v e d

.

4 The Ox ford Dictionary

of Current Eng lish 514 (1985) (emphasis added).

25(f) Co nc lu sio n

.

In th e fu ll c o n te x t o f th e tria l o f th is c a se

, re a so n a b l e j u ro rs wo u ld n o t

h a v e in te rp re te d th e tria l c o u rt’s n o w -c h a lle n g e d c o m m e n t a s a n e x p re ssio n o f

“ o p in io n a s to wh a t h a s or h a s n o t be e n p ro v e d ” fo rb id d e n b y OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

.

Th e ju ry wo u ld h a v e u n d e rsto o d th e p a ssin g re m a rk a s it wa s in te nd e d

– a s a

p re fa to ry sta te m e nt o u tlin in g th e ty p e o f c o ntro v e rsy

– th e “ c a se ”

– th e y wo u ld

b e “ h e a rin g a

b o u t.” Th e c o u rt m a d e it c ry sta l c le ar th a t th e ju ro rs wo u ld h a v e

to d e c id e th e c a se b a se d o n ly o n th e e vi d en c e th a t th e p a rtie s wo uld la te r

p r e se n t, a nd wh e n th a t e v id e n c e wa s p re se n te d a n d th e pa rtie s m a d e t h e i r

o p e n in g sta te m e n ts a

n d c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th e pro o f of v e nu e wa s p la in ly

su ffic ie n t a n d e n tire ly u n d isp u te d

. It a p p e a rs th a t R o use ’s tria l c o u n se l d id n o t

in te rp re t th e c o u rt’s re m a rk a s im p ro p e r, n o r d id h is a

p p e lla te c o u nse l ra ise th e

c la im du rin g th e m o tio n fo r n e w tria l pro c e e d in g s. Fro m a ll a pp e a ra n c e s, o n ly

wh e n h un tin g fo r so me th i n g n o n -friv o lo u s to a pp e a l d id th e sa m e a

p p e lla te

c o u n se l sp o t a fe w wo rd s in a p re lim in ary in stru c tio n wh ic h

, wh e n p lu c k e d o u t

o f c o n te x t, c ou ld b e a rg u e d to c o m p rise an im

p ro p e r ju d ic ia l c o m m e n t o n v e n u e

– e v e n th o u g h a (m a rg in a lly ) b et t e r ar g u m e n t c o uld b e m a d e th a t th e c o urt

im p ro p e rly c om m e n te d b y sa y in g th a t th is w a s a “ mu r d e r c a se ” in th e sa m e

26p a ssa g e

. It is disa p p o in tin g th a t th e m a

jo rity o p in io n e n d o r s e s th is n o n

c o n te x tu a l a

p p ro a c h to § 1 7 -8 -5 7

, a n d re v e rse s c o n v ic tio n s th a t w e re

, th e re c o rd

d e m o n stra te s, th e re su lt o f a fu ll a n d fa ir tria l.

Wo rse y e t, b y re ve rsin g in th is c a se

, th e m a jo rity o p in io n ta k e s O CGA §

1 7 -8 -5 7 b e y o n d i ts sc o p e u n d e r 1 5 0 y e a rs o f p re c e d e n t

– we ll b e y o n d o u r

d e c isio n s in P a te l a n d An d e rso n

, wh ic h a re d istin g u ish a b le o n m ultip le g ro u n d s

a s sh o wn a

b o v e

. Th e m a

jo rity o p in io n o p e n s th e d o o r fo r d e fe n d a n ts w h o we re

c o n v ic te d a fte r f

a i r t r i a ls to sc o u r tra n sc rip ts o f e ve n th e m o st p re lim in a ry o f

in stru c tio n s to th e v e n ire fo r a n y ju d ic ia l re fe re n c e to th e ir “c a se ” a lo ng with a

m o d ifie r re la t i n g t o a d i s p u te d

– o r e ve n a n u nd isp ute d

– fa c t, h o p in g th a t th e

c o u rt fa ile d to th ro w in a n e x p lic it “ a lle g e d ly .” An d e v e n th o ug h n o o n e

o b je c te d wh e n su c h a re fe re nc e wa s m a d e

– b e c a u se n o re a so n a

b le p e rso n wo u ld

u n d e rsta n d th e re fe re nc e to b e th e e x p re ssio n of th e c o u rt’s “ o p in io n a s to wh a t

h a s o r h a s n o t p ro v e d ”

– th is Co u rt (a n d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls) will p re su m a b ly

n e e d to re v e rse th o se c o n v ic tio n s to o

, i f w e a re to b e tru e to to da y ’s n o v e l

p re c e de n t. If th is is h o w o u r Co u rt is g oin g to a pp ly § 1 7 -8 -5 7

, th e n it is tim e

fo r th e Ge n e ra l Asse m

b ly to c o n sid e r a m e n d in g th e sta tu te to e lim in a te its

u n u su a l su pe r-p la in -e rro r re m e d ia l la n g u a g e

, so th a t c on vic tio ns will b e

27re v e rse d b a se d o n tria l ju d g e s’ c o m m e n ts o n l y w h e re th e c o m m e n ts c a u se d

so m e a c tu a l p re

ju d ic e to th e de fe n d a nt.

2

. Th e Ge n e ra l Asse mb ly Sh o u l d C o n sid e r Re p e a lin g th e S

e c o n d

S e n te n c e o f OCGA §

1 7 -8 -5 7

.

In c o n sid e rin g wh e th e r OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 sh o u ld b e a m e nd e d

, th e first

im p o rta n t p o i n t t o re c o g n iz e is th a t o u r sta tu te d o e s n o t im p le m e n t a

c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t a g a in st ju d g e s c o m m e ntin g o n th e e vid e n c e

, o n ly

p o lic ie s e sta b lish e d b y th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly a n d th u s o p e n to a lte ra tio n b y th a t

sa m e b o d y

. Th e re is a c o n stitu tio n a l ru le a g a in st c oe rc iv e ju ry in stru c tio n s, se e

Lo we n fie ld v. P h e lp s, 4 8 4 U.S . 2 3 1 , 2 4 1 (1 0 8 S C t 5 4 6 , 9 8 LE2 d 5 6 8 ) (1 9 8 8 ),

b u t no e sta b lish e d c o n stitu tio n a l o r c o m m on -la w ru le p ro hib its “ th e tra d itio n a l

p ra c tic e o f ju d ic ia l c om m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e .” W o n g v

. S m ith

,

_ _ _ U.S

.

_ _ _

(1 3 1 S Ct 1 0

, 1 1

, 1 7 8 LE2 d 40 3 ) (2 01 0) (A l i t o

, J., d isse n tin g fro m d e n ia l o f

c e rtio ra ri). To th e c o n tra ry

,

F o r c e n tu rie s, tria l ju dg e s h a v e e n jo y e d a uth o rity to c o m m e n t o n th e

e v id e nc e

. At c om m o n la w, th e ju dg e w a s e m po w e re d to “we ig [h ]

th e e v id e n c e ” a n d sh a re a n “ o p in io n ” with th e ju ry

, e v e n “in m a tte r

o f f ac t

. ” Th e p ra c tic e is we ll e sta b lish e d in [th e U.S

. S u p re m e ]

Co u r t ’ s c a se s a s we ll. Th e Co u rt h a s re c o g niz e d th a t a tria l ju d g e

h a s “ d isc re tio n ” to “ c om m e n t u p o n th e e v id e n c e ,” to c a ll th e ju ry ’s

“ a tte n tio n to p a rts o f it wh ic h h e th in k s im p o rta nt,” a n d to “ e x p re ss

h is o p in io n upo n th e fa c ts.” To b e su re , th e p ra c tic e h a s fo r m a n y

28y e a rs b e e n o n th e wa n e

. Co m m e n t on th e e v id e n c e h a s a lwa y s b e e n

m o re po p u la r in Brita in th a n it e v e r wa s in th is c o u n try

. Th a t sa id

, fe d e ra l c o u rts a

n d se v e ra l S ta te s c o n tin u e to re c o g n iz e j u d ic ia l

a u th o rity to c o m m e n t o n th e e vid e n c e

, a n d Ca lifo rn ia e x p re ssly

p ro te c ts th e p ra c tic e in its S ta te Co n stitu tio n

.

Id . (fo o tn o te a n d c ita tio ns o m itte d ).

Co lo n ia l a

n d s u b s e q u e n t d e m o c r a

t i c s e n t i m e n t fa v o re d we a k e nin g th e ro le

o f ju d g e s, a n d o v e r th e y e a rs m a n y sta te s, in c lu d in g Ge o rg ia

, ha v e so u g h t

le g isla tiv e ly to c urb ju dic ia l p o we r, in c lu d in g b y p ro h ib itin g tria l ju d g e s fro m

c o m m e n tin g o n th e e v id e nc e

. S e e Ja c k B. We in ste in

, Th e P o w e r a n d Du ty o f

F e d e ra l Ju d g e s to Ma r s h a ll a n d Co m m e n t on th e E vid e n c e in Ju ry T ria ls a n d

S o me S u gg e stio n s on Ch a rg in g Ju rie s, 1 1 8 F RD 1 6 1

, 1 64 -1 6 5 (1 9 8 8 )

(su m m a riz in g th e h isto ry o f ju d ic ia l su m m a ry o f a n d c o m m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e

in En gla n d a n d Am e ric a ). As o f 1 9 8 8

, 3 7 sta te s, in c lu d in g Ge o rg ia

, p ro h ib ite d

ju d ic ia l c o m m e n t on th e e v id e n c e

, a n d e v e n in th e fe de ra l a n d sta te ju risd ic tio n s

wh e re su c h c o m m e nt is p e rm itte d

, it is ra re ly d on e

. S e e id

. a t 1 69

. Th u s, wh ile

a rg u m e n ts c a n b e m a d e in fa v o r o f th e tra d itio na l a p p ro a c h, se e id

. a t 1 6 6 -1 6 7

,

th e re is n o c o m

p e llin g re a so n t o a l te r Ge o rg ia ’s lo n g sta n d in g p olic y a g a in st

ju d ic ia l c o m m e n t o n th e e vid e n c e ; th e p olic y n ow in c o rp o ra te d in th e first

se n te nc e o f OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 se rv e s to p ro te c t th e ju ry ’s c o n stitu tio n a l p ro v in c e

29a s th e fin d e r o f fa c t in c rim in a l c a se s. Se e Ga

. Co n st. o f 1 9 8 3

, Art. I, S e c

. I, P a r.

XI; F o rd v . S ta te , 2 Ga . Ap p. 8 3 4 , 8 3 8 (5 9 S E 8 8 ) (1 9 0 7 ) (“ It is a lwa y s wise r,

sa fe r, be tte r, a n d ju ste r th a t tria l ju d g e s sh ou ld c o n fin e th e m se lv e s e x c lu siv e ly

to a n e n u n c ia tio n o f th e la w

, le a v in g to c o u nse l th e d uty o f e lu c id a tin g th e fa c ts,

a n d to ju rie s th e fin d in g o f th e tru th in th e e v id e n c e .” ).

Th e se c on d se n te n c e o f § 1 7-8 -5 7

– th e re m e d ia l p ro visio n

– is a d iffe re n t

m a tte r, e sp e c ia lly if th is Co urt in te rp re ts th e pro h ib ito ry sc op e o f th e sta tu te a s

e x p a n siv e ly a s th e m a

jo rity o p in io n d o e s in th is c a se

. Th e re m e d i a l se n te n c e

sa y s:

S h o u l d a n y ju d g e v io la te th is Co de se c tio n

, th e v io la tio n sh a ll b e

h e ld b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls to b e e rro r a nd th e

d e c i s i o n i n th e c a se re v e rse d

, a n d a ne w tria l g ra n te d in th e c o u rt

b e lo w with su c h d ire c tio n s a s th e S u pre m e Co u r t or Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls m a y la wfu lly giv e

.

We h a v e h e ld th a t th is p ro v isio n re q u ire s a h ig h ly u nu su a l,“ su p e r-p la in -e rro r”

fo rm o f a p p e lla te re v ie w o f a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7: “ no t o nly m a y th e y

b e ra ise d o n a

p p e a l with o u t a n y o b

j ec t i o n a t tria l, b u t, if su sta in e d

, th e y

a u to m a tic a lly re su lt in re v e r s a l with o ut c o n sid e ra tio n o f wh e th e r th e e rro r

c a u se d a n y a c tu a l p re

ju d ic e .” We lls, 2 9 5 Ga

. a t 1 6 7

. As d isc u sse d n e x t, th e re

a re g o o d re a so n s fo r th e G e n e ra l Asse m b ly to re c o n sid e r wh e t h e r th is

30e x tra o rd in a rily d e fe n d a n t-frie n d ly fo rm o f re v ie w is a p p ro p ria te

, a n d to

e lim in a te a t le a st th e a

u to m a tic -re v e rsa l a sp e c t o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7.

(a ) Pla in -Erro r Re v ie w.

It is n o t c le a r wh y th is Co u rt h a s, in re c e n t y e a rs, e n d o rse d “p la in e rro r”

re v ie w o f a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

– a llo win g d e fe n d a n ts to ra ise

su c h c la im s fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l, with o ut o b

je c tin g c o n te m

p o ra n e o u sly

to th e a lle g e d v io la tio n wh e n it o c c u rre d a t tria l.

Th e c o n te m

p o ra n e o u s o b

je c tio n ru le h a s lo n g b e e n a m a in sta y o f

Ge o rg ia t ria l p ra c tic e

. S e e

, e

. g

., Go o d title v

. Ro e

, 2 0 Ga

. 13 5 (4 )

(1 8 5 6 ); Bu rtin e v

. S ta te

, 1 8 G a

. 5 3 4 (1 ) (1 8 55 ). Th a t ru le p ro v id e s

th a t, “ in ord e r to p re se rv e a p o in t o f e rro r fo r th e c o n sid e ra tio n o f

a n a p p e lla te c ou rt, c o u n se l m

u st ta k e e x c e p tio n to th e a lle g e d e rro r

a t th e e a rlie st p o ssib le o p p o rtu n ity in th e p ro g re ss o f th e c a se b y a

p ro p e r o b je c tio n m a d e a

p art o f th e re c o rd .”

S h a rp e v . De p t. o f Tra n sp ., 2 6 7 Ga . 2 6 7 , 2 6 7 (4 7 6 S E2 d 72 2) (1 9 9 6 ) (c ita tio n

o m itte d ). Th e ru le is a

p p lie d to c la im s o f tria l e rro r in b o th c iv il a n d c rim in a l

c a se s. S e e

, e .g

., id .; Jo h n so n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 7 8 5

, 78 7 (7 4 1 S E2 d 62 7) (2 0 1 3 ).

Un d e r th is ru le

, fa ilu re to m a k e a c on te m p ora ne o u s o b

je c tio n a t tria l wa iv e s

a p p e lla te re v ie w o f th e c la im . S e e id . a t 7 8 7 -7 8 8

.

F o r m a n y y e a rs, th is Co u rt a p p lie d th e c o n te m

p o ra ne o u s o b

je c tio n ru le to

a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f th e p re d e c e sso r sta tu te s to § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. In d e e d

, in P u llia m

31v

. S ta te

, 1 96 Ga

. 7 8 2 (2 8 S E 2 d 1 3 9 ) (1 9 43 ), th e Co urt sq u a re ly a d dre sse d th e

issu e a n d h e ld th a t a

c o m p la in t th a t th e tria l c ou rt e xp re sse d a n o p in io n o n th e

g u ilt o f th e a c c u se d o r o n wh a t h a s o r h a s n o t b e e n p ro v e d c ou ld n o t b e ra ise d

fo r th e first ti me i n a m o tio n fo r n e w tria l (m u c h le ss o n a

p p e a l), o v e rru lin g

c a se s th a t ha d h e ld to th e c o n tra ry

. S e e id

. a t 7 9 0 -7 9 1

. P ullia m w a s th e la w in

Ge o rg ia fo r m o re th a n a h a lf-c e n tu ry

, a nd o n its a u th o rity m a n y a lle g e d

v io la tio n s o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 we re d e e m e d wa iv e d

, in c lu din g a t l e a s t o ne c la im

in v o lv in g a ju d g e ’s bla ta n t c o m m e n t o n p ro o f o f ve n u e

. S e e S h e ph e rd v

. S ta te

,

2 0 3 G a

. 6 3 5, 6 3 6 (4 7 S E2 d 8 6 0 ) (1 9 48 ) (h o ld in g th a t, w h e re n o m o tio n f o r

m istria l wa s m a d e wh e n th e tria l ju dg e in te rru p te d th e q u e stio n in g o f a witn e ss

b e in g a sk e d wh e th e r th e c rim e w a s c o m m itte d in Ba rto w Co u nty to sa y

,

“ Alre a d y p ro v e d it wa s in Ba rto w Co u n ty ,” th e c la im wa s wa iv e d an d c o u ld n o t

b e first ra ise d in a m o tio n fo r n e w tria l). S e e a lso A rc hie v

. S ta te

, 2 4 8 Ga

. Ap p

.

5 6

, 5 7 & n .3 (5 45 S E2 d 17 9 ) (2 0 01 ) (c itin g n u m e ro u s c a se s a p p ly in g wa iv e r to

§ 1 7-8 -5 7 c la im s a nd n o tin g th a t in S ta te v

. Griffin

, 2 4 0 Ga

. 4 7 0

, 4 70 (2 41 S E2 d

2 3 0 ) (1 9 7 8 ), th is Co u rt h a d g ra n te d c e rtio ra ri to re ite ra te th a t “ [t] h e q u e stio n o f

wh e th e r [wh a t is n o w § 1 7 -8 -5 7 ] h a s b e e n vio la te d is n ot re a c he d [o n a p p e a l]

u n le ss a n o b

je c tio n o r m o tio n fo r m istria l is m a d e [a t tria l] ” ).

32In 2 00 0

, ho we ve r, th is Co urt, a fte r re c o g n iz in g th a t “ we h a v e re p e a te d ly

h e ld th a t su c h a n e rro r [u n d e r § 17 -8 -5 7 ] is wa iv e d in th e a b se n c e o f a n

o b je c tio n or a m o tio n fo r a m istria l,” d e c re e d th a t “[w] e be lie v e th e p la in e rro r

ru le sh o u ld b e a

p p lie d to c a se s o f th is kin d .” P a u l v

. S ta te

, 27 2 G a

. 8 4 5

, 8 4 8

(5 3 7 S E2 d 5 8 ) (2 00 0 ). S e e a lso Le d fo rd v

. Sta te

, 2 8 9 G a

. 7 0

, 8 5 (7 09 S E2 d

2 3 9 ) (2 0 1 1 ) ( r e c o g n i z in g th a t P a u l a n d su b se q ue n t c a se s h a d d isa pp ro v e d th e

p rio r c a se s h o ld in g th a t a p p e lla te re v ie w o f an a lle g e d § 1 7 -8 -5 7 v io la tio n is

w a i v e d u n le ss a n o bje c tio n or m o tio n fo r m istria l is m a d e on th a t g ro u n d a t

tria l ) ; A r c h i e

, 2 4 8 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 5 7 (sta tin g th a t P a u l “ a n no u n c e d a n e w ru le o f

la w” ). P a

u l o ffe re d little re a so n in g fo r th is dra m a tic d e p a rtu re fro m we lle sta b lish e d p re c e d e n t, sa y in g o n ly th a t th e Co u rt h a d n ot p re v io usly a d o p te d a

p la in e rro r ru le in n on -d e a th p e n a lty c a se s, a lth o u g h th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls h a d

in o n e c a se

, a n d th a t “th is Co u rt h a s we ig h e d f a c t s a g a in st th e p la in e rro r ru le

e v e n wh e re it h a s sa id th a t th e p la in e rro r ru le do e s no t a p p ly ,” a s if a ssu m in g

th a t a le g a l ru le e x ists a n d fin d in g th a t it h a s n o t b e e n v io l a t e d q u a l ifie s a s

p re c e de n t fo r a d o p tin g th a t ru le

. P a u l, 2 7 2 Ga . a t 8 4 8

.

In p a rtic u la r, P a

u l id e n tifie d n o la n gu a g e in § 1 7 -8 -5 7 th a t d isp la c e s th e

tra d itio n a l c on te m

po ra ne o u s-o bje c tio n re qu ire m e n t; in d e e d

, th e Ge n e ra l

33Asse m

bly h a d n e v e r c h a n g e d th e sta tu to ry te x t in re a c tio n to th e m a ny a p p e lla te

d e c isio n s o v e r m a n y d e c a d e s h o ld in g th a t th e c o n te m p o ra n e o u s-o b

je c tio n ru le

a p p lie d to c la im s u n d e r th is sta tu te

. Th e a bse n c e o f a n e x p lic it te x tu a l b a sis fo r

p la in -e rro r r e v i e w sto o d in c o n tra st to th e on ly o th e r situ a tio n to th a t p o in t in

wh ic h th e Co u rt h a d e n g a g e d in su c h re v ie w. S e e H ic k s v

. S ta te

, 2 5 6 Ga

. 7 1 5

,

7 3 0 (3 52 SE2 d 7 6 2 ) (1 9 8 7 ) (e x p la in in g th a t th is Co ur t r e v i e ws c la im s re la te d

to th e im p o sitio n o f a d e a th se n te n c e

, e ve n w i t h o u t a tim e ly o b je c tio n a t tria l,

b a se d o n OCGA § 1 7-1 0 -3 5 (c ) (1 ), wh ic h sa y s th a t th e S u p re m e Co u rt “ sh a ll

d e te rm in e

. . . [w] h e th e r th e se n te n c e o f d e a th wa s im p o se d u nd e r th e in flu e n c e

o f p a ssio n , p re

ju dic e , o r a n y o th e r a rb itra ry fa c to r” ).

S in c e P a ul, wh e n th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly h a s w a n t e d to a

u th o riz e p la in

e rro r re v ie w, it h a s a g a in in c lu d e d sp e c ific la n g u a g e in th e a p plic a b le s t a t u t e

.

S e e OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8 (b ) (e ffe c tiv e Ju ly 1, 2 0 0 7) (“ Fa ilu re to o b je c t [to a ju ry

in stru c tio n ] in a c c o rd a

n c e with su b se c tio n (a ) of th is C o de se c tio n sh a ll p re c lu d e

a p p e lla te re v ie w o f su c h p o rtio n o f th e ju ry c h a rg e

, u n le ss su c h p o rtio n o f th e

ju ry c h a rg e c o n stitu te s p la in e rro r wh ic h a ffe c ts su bsta n tia l rig h ts o f th e p a rtie s.

S u c h p la in e rro r m a y b e c o n sid e re d o n a p p e a l e v e n if it wa s no t b ro u gh t to th e

c o u rt’s a tte n tio n a s p ro v id e d in su b se c tio n (a ) o f th is Co d e se c tio n .” ); OCGA §

342 4 -1 -1 0 3 (d ) (e ffe c tiv e Ja n

. 1

, 2 0 1 3 ) (“ No th in g in th is Co d e se c tio n [re q u irin g

a t im e ly o b

je c tio n to e v id e n tia ry ru lin gs] sh a ll p re c lu de a c o urt fro m t a k i n g

n o tic e o f p la in e rro rs a ffe c tin g su b sta n tia l rig h ts a lth o u g h su c h e rro rs we re n o t

b ro u g h t to th e a tte n tio n o f th e c o u rt.” ). M o r e o v e r, th e C o urt of Ap pe a ls ha s

c o n tin u e d to a

p p ly th e u su a l wa iv e r d o c trin e to a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f O CGA §

9 -1 0 -7

, th e c iv i l a na lo g u e o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7

, wh ic h c o n ta in s a n id e n tic a l re m e d ia l

se n te nc e

. S e e

, e .g

., Ma hsa

, In c

. v

. Al– Ma din a h P e tro le u m

, In c

. , 2 7 6 Ga

. Ap p

.

8 9 0

, 8 9 4 (6 2 5 S E2 d 3 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (“ [T] he q u e stio n o f wh e th e r OCGA § 9-1 0 -7 ha s

b e e n v io la te d is n o t re a c h e d un le ss a n o b je c t i o n o r m otio n fo r m istria l is

m a d e .” ).

It m a y we ll be th a t p la in -e rro r re v ie w of a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f OCGA § 1 7

-

8 -5 7 is a p p r o p r i a t e a s a m a tte r o f p o lic y

. T he a rg u m e n t c a n b e m a d e th a t th e

tria l c o urt’s im

p ro p e r e x pre ssio n to th e ju ry o f its o p in io n o n th e fa c ts is sim ila r

to th e c ou rt’s im

p ro p e r c h a rg e to th e ju ry o n th e la w, fo r wh ic h § 1 7

- 8

- 5 8 ( b )

n o w a u th o riz e s p la in -e rro r re v ie w. Th e a rg u m e n t c a n a lso b e m a d e

, ho we ve r,

th a t th e c o n te m

p o ra n e o u s-o b

je c tio n ru le a

p p lie s to b a r a

p p e lla te re v ie w e v e n o f

a lle g e d c o n stitu ti o n a l v i o la tio n s, a n d th e re is n o n e e d to e x c lu d e th is so rt o f

sta tu to ry v io la tio n fro m its re a c h

. F o r p re se n t pu rp o se s, th e im p o rta nt p o in ts a re

35first, th a t th is p o lic y d e c isio n sh o u ld b e m a d e e x p re ssly b y th e Ge n e ra l

As s e mb l y

, a

n d se c o n d

, th a t a s th e histo ry o f d e c isio ns fro m th is Co urt

d e m o n stra te s, p la in -e rro r re vie w o f a lle g e d § 1 7-8 -5 7 v io la tio n s is n o t re q u ire d

.

(b ) Au to ma tic Re v e rsa l.

Un lik e th e p la in -e rro r a sp e c t of o u r a p pe lla te r e v i e w o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7

v io la tio n s, ou r c a se s h a v e c o n siste n tly he ld t h a t, w h e n a n a pp e lla te c o urt

d e te rm in e s th a t th e sta tu te h a s b e e n v io la te d

, th e on ly re m e d y is re v e rsa l a n d a

n e w tria l, g iv e n th e sta tu to ry la n g u a g e m a n d a tin g th a t a v io la tio n “ sh a ll b e h e ld

b y th e S u p re m e C o u r t o r C o u r t o f Ap p e a ls to be e rro r a n d th e d e c isio n in th e

c a se re v e rse d

, a

n d a n e w tria l g ra n te d in th e c o u rt b e lo w.” S e e

, e .g

., S a ue rwe in

,

2 8 0 G a

. a t 4 3 9

. An d e v e n w ith o ut t h e s t a t u t o ry re q u ire m e n t, it m ig ht m a k e

se n se to p re su m e p re

ju d ic e w h e n a ju dg e v io la t e s § 1 7

- 8 -5 7 b y e x pre ssin g a n

o p in io n “ a s to th e g u ilt of th e a c c u se d ,” a s ju d ic ia l in tru sio n in to th a t u ltim a te

q u e stio n fo r th e ju ry in a c rim in a l c a se c o u ld b e v ie we d a s a “stru c tu ra l” e rro r

n o t su sc e p tib le to ha rm le ss-e rro r re v ie w

– a s a “ d e fe c t a ffe c tin g th e fra m e wo rk

with in wh ic h th e tria l p ro c e e d s, ra th e r th a n sim p ly a n e rro r in th e tria l p ro c e ss

itse lf.” Ariz o n a v

. F u l mi n an te

, 4 9 9 U.S

. 27 9

, 3 1 0 (1 11 S Ct 1 2 4 6

, 1 1 3 LE2 d

3 0 2 ) (1 99 1 )

. S e e a lso Be rry v

. S ta te

, 2 82 Ga

. 3 76

, 3 7 8 (6 5 1 S E2 d 1 ) (2 0 0 7 )

36(d e sc rib in g stru c tu ra l e rro r in th e sa m e wa y ); 2 A Ch a rle s Ala n M o o re & P e te r

J. He n n in g

, F e d

. P ra c

. & P ro c

. Crim

. § 4 88 (4 th e d

. 2 01 4) (“ [E] v e n th ou g h th e

ju ry is a d v i s e d t h at th e qu e stio n is u ltim a te ly fo r th e m

, th e e x p re ssio n b y th e

ju d g e th a t h e th in k s d e fe nd a n t g u ilty will c a ll fo r re v e rsa l in a d isp u te d c a se .” ).

It is tru ly e x c e p tio n a l, h o we v e r, to e x c lu d e ju d ic ia l e rro rs in v o lv in g tria l

e v id e nc e fro m h a rm le ss-e rro r re v ie w. With re ga rd to th e e v id e n c e in c rim in a l

c a s e s, tria l c ou rts re g u la rly v io la te th e so rt of n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l p o lic ie s

in c o rp o ra te d in OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 a n d o th e r sta tu te s a n d p re c e d e n ts, in c lu d in g

th e m a n y p ro v isio ns of th e Ev id e n c e Co de a n d th e m a n y c a se s in te rp re tin g th a t

c o d e

. S u c h e rro rs a re ro u tin e ly su b je c t to h a rm le ss-e rro r re v ie w; “ ‘[t] h e te st fo r

d e te rm in in g n o n c o n stitu tio n a l h a rm le ss e rro r is wh e th e r it is h ig hly p ro b a b le

th a t th e e rro r d id n o t c o n trib u te to th e v e rd ic t.’” Riv e ra v

. S ta te , 2 95 Ga . 3 8 0

,

3 8 2 (7 6 1 S E2 d 3 0 ) (2 01 4 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Ha rm le ss-e rro r re v ie w a lso

e x te n d s to a wid e a rra y o f e v id e n c e -re la te d vio la tio n s o f th e fe d e ra l an d sta te

c o n stitu tio n s

– in c lu d in g su c h se rio us e rro rs a s th e a d m issio n o f an in v o lu n ta ry

c o n fe ssio n a n d in c o rre c t ju ry in stru c tio n s a b o u t h o w to c on sid e r th e e vid e n c e

,

se e F u lm in a n te

, 4 9 9 U

. S

. a t 3 0 6 -3 0 7

, 3 10

– a lth o u gh a m ore strin g e n t te st is

a p p lie d : th e re v ie win g c ou rt m u st d e te rm in e th a t th e c on stitu tio n a l e rro r w a s

37h a rm le ss b e y o n d a re a so n a ble d o u b t. S e e

, e .g

., Ard is v

. S ta te

, 2 9 0 Ga

. 5 8

, 6 2

(7 1 8 S E 2 d 5 2 6 ) (2 0 1 1) (in vo lv in g a v io la tio n o f th e Co nfro n ta tio n Cla u se ).

F o r th e re a so n s d isc u sse d in D iv isio n 1 a b o v e

, i t w o u l d b e a

stra ig h tfo rwa rd m a tte r to a p p ly n o n c o n stitu tio n a l h a rm le ss e rro r a n a ly sis to th e

t r ia l c o u rt’s a lle g e d v io la tio n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 in th is c a se (a n d in sim il a r

c a se s). It is h ig h ly p ro b a

ble

– in d e e d

, I a m q u ite c e rta in

– th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s

n o w-c h a lle n g e d re m a rk d id no t c o n trib u te to th e ju ry ’s g u ilty v e rd ic ts, b e c a use

th e S ta te re a d ily p r o v e d th a t th e c rim e s o c c u rre d in M u sc o ge e Co u n ty

, th e

d e fe n se n e v e r d isp ute d th a t p ro of, a n d Ro u se o th e rw i s e re c e iv e d a fa ir tria l.

Wh y sh o u ld we h a v e a n a u to m a tic -re v e rsa l ru le wh e n a tria l c o u rt i m p ro p e rly

e x p re sse s its o p in io n o n wh e th e r th e e v id e nc e h a s o r h a s n o t p ro v e d a fa c t, wh e n

we d o no t h a ve su c h a ru le wh e n th e c o u rt im p ro p e rly a d mi t s o r e xc lu d e s th e

e v id e n c e th a t is a c tu a lly n e e d e d to p ro v e th a t fa c t? I se e n o g o o d re a so n to

re ta in th e u n u su a l a

u to m a tic -re v e rsa l la n g u a g e o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. In d e e d

, th e

in ju stic e of re v e rsin g a c rim in a l c o n v ic tio n so le ly b e c a u se th e tria l c o urt

e x p re sse d a n o p in io n o n a n u n d isp u te d fa c t

– th e situ a tio n in wh ic h a v io la tio n

o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 is m o st c o n sp ic u o u sly h a rm le ss

– m a y e x p la in wh y th is Co u rt a n d

th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls, in S a u e rwe in an d m a n y c a se s b e f o r e i t

, a v o id e d th e

38im

p lic a tio n s o f th e se c o n d se n te n c e o f § 1 7 -8 -5 7 b y re a d in g th e first s e n t e n c e

o f th e sta tu te a s n o t a

p p ly in g to ju d ic ia l c o m

m e n ts o n u n c o n t e ste d fa c ts. S e e

Div isio n 1 (e ) a

b o v e

.

F o r th e se re a so n s, I d isse n t, a n d I u rg e th e G e n e ra l Asse m b ly to c o n sid e r

re p e a lin g th e se c o n d se n te n c e o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. I a m a uth o riz e d to sta te th a t

P re sid in g Ju stic e Hin e s a n d Ju stic e Bla c kwe ll jo in in th is d isse nt.

39