THI RD DI VI SI ON

DOYLE, P. J.

, REESE, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE PHI PPS

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 22, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 2 A0 25 8 . DUKES v . THE STATE.

R E E S E

, J u d g e.

A W al t o n Co u n ty ju ry fo u n d Lat wo n Du kes g u il t y o f o n e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed

b at t ery

. 1 Du k es fi led an am en d ed m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, w hi ch t h e tri al co u rt d en i ed

.

Du k es ap p eal s

, arg u i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y (1 ) m ak in g i m

p ro per co m

m en t s

o n wi t n es s t es t i m o n y

, (2 ) t es t i fy i n g as a w i t nes s i n t h e ju ry ’ s p res en ce, (3 ) co ach i n g

t h e p ro secu t o r o n h o w t o try t h e cas e, an d (4 ) i n terp o s i n g o b ject i o n s o n t h e St at e’ s

b eh al f. Fo r t he fo l l o w i n g reas o n s , we affi rm

.

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

, 2 th e ev i d en ce s h o ws t h at in

J an u ary 2 0 18

, th e v i ct i m s h ared an ap art m en t wi t h h i s fi an cée, h i s t wo ch i l d ren

, h i s

1 See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a).

2 See Jo h ns o n v. S t a t e , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p . 4 2 9 , 4 3 0 (7 9 7 SE2 d 6 6 6 ) (2 0 1 7 ).s i st er, an d D u k es

. Bel i ev i n g th at t h e en vi ro n m en t was n o l o n g er “ s ui t ab l e” fo r t h ei r

c h i l d ren

, t h e v i ct i m an d h i s fi an cée d eci d ed to t u rn o ff t h e p o wer an d m o v e o u t t o

“ g et ri d o f” Du k es an d t h e s i s t er. Two d ay s l at er, t h e v i ct i m ret u rn ed t o g at h er s o m e

b e l o n g i n g s

. Aft er fi nd in g h o l es i n t h e wal l s an d fo o d al l o v er t h e fl o o r, t h e v i c t i m

cal l ed h i s s i s t er. Th e fi an cée no t i ced t h at Du kes s eem ed “ real ly m ad ” becau s e i t was

m ai n l y Du kes ’ s b el o n g i n g s th at h ad b een t o u ch ed

. Th e fi an cée o ffered t o cal l t h e

p o l i ce, b ut Du k es i n s i n u a t ed t h at Du k es wo u l d g et “ rev en ge” i n s t ead

. E v ery o n e

ev en tu al l y l eft t h e ap art m en t

. Becau s e th e o n l y un t o u ch ed ro o m b el on g ed t o t h e

v i ct i m ’ s s i s t er, t he v i ct i m cal l ed an d t h reat en ed h er b ecau se t h e v i ct i m b el iev ed t h at

s h e was b eh i n d t h e d es t ru ct i o n

.

Th at ev en i n g

, t h e v ict i m ret u rn ed to t h e ap art m en t al o ne. W h i l e h e was i n s i de,

a cro wd g at h ered ou t s i d e, i n cl u d i n g D u k es

, D u k es ’ s co u s i n

, Ras h ard Bl ack wel l

, an d

t h e v i ct i m ’ s s i st er, wh o h ad b ro u g h t s ev eral p eo p l e wi t h h er b ecau s e o f h er b ro t h er’ s

t h reat s

, i n cl u di n g Jam i e Ed w ard s

. Th e g ro u p b eg an y el l i n g i n s ul t s at t h e v i ct i m

, wh o

y el led b ack b u t st ay ed at th e t h re s h o l d o f th e ap art m en t

. Du k es w as al so i n q u i ri n g

a b o u t m i s s i n g b el o ng i n g s

. At o n e p o i n t

, t h e v i ct i m recei v ed a cal l fro m h i s f i a n c é e

wh o

, aft er heari n g t h e co m m ot i o n i n t h e back g ro u n d, h ad h er fat h er acco m p an y h er

t o t h e ap art m en t t o ch eck o n t h e v i ct im

. W h en th e fi an cée arri v ed

, s o m eo n e i n t h e

2cro wd t h reat en e d t o a s s a u l t h er i f t he v ict i m d i d n o t co m e o u t s id e. In res p o n s e, t h e

v i ct i m cam e o u t s i d e t o co nv i n ce h i s f i a n cée t o l eav e, b u t wh en he t ri ed t o ret u rn to

t h e ap art m en t, Du k es “ b l i n d s i d ed ” h i m b y t ack l in g h i m t o t h e s t ep s fro m b eh i n d an d

t h en h it h i m

wi t h cl o sed fi s t s.

Th e v i ct i m tes ti fi ed at t ri al t hat h e di d no t rem em b er an y t h i n g el se aft er Du k es

t ack l ed h im

. Th e fi an cée an d her fat h er recal l ed h o w Du kes

, Bl ack wel l

, an d Ed ward s

co n ti n u ed t o b eat th e vi ct i m fo r s ev eral m i n u t es

, ev en aft er h e lo s t co ns ci o us n es s

. Th e

at t ack s t o p p ed w h en t h e s i s t er y el l ed t h at th e p ol i ce were co m i n g

, cau s i n g Du k es an d

t h e o t her as s ai lan t s to g et i n to t h ei r cars an d l eav e. Bl ack wel l t es t i fi ed th at Du k es h ad

a h an d wo u n d an d t h at Du k es m ad e a co m m en t as t h ey dro v e away to th e effect o f “ I

t h i n k I m i gh t h av e h i t [t he v i c t i m ] i n h i s m o u th

, h i s t o o t h o r s o m et h i n g [.] ” Th e

res p o n d in g o ffi cer t es t i fi ed t h at t h e cu t o n D u k es ’ s h an d was “ co n s is ten t wi t h a t o o th

m ark fro m

h i tt i n g s o m eb o d y

i n t h e m o u t h.”

As a res ul t o f t h e b eat i ng

, t h e v i ct i m ’ s jaw s wel l ed

. He h ad ch i p ped an d b ro k en

t eet h, in ju ri es fro m wh ere hi s b ro k en t o o t h wen t th r o u g h h i s l i p s

, an d ho l es i n h i s

g u m s

. An ex p o s ed n erv e in o n e t o ot h cau s ed “ ex cru ci at i n g ” p ai n

, an d at t h e t i m e o f

t ri al

, h i s b ack t oo t h was s t i l l ch i pp ed b ecau se h e co u l d n o t affo rd to fi x i t

. Th e

i n ju ri es cau s ed t h e v i ct i m t o h a v e m o ut h p ai n an d t ro u b le sp eak i n g

, as wel l as

3d i ffi cu l t y eat i n g

, d ri n k i n g

, an d wo rk i n g . Du k es was i n d i ct ed fo r ag grav at ed b at t ery

b y ren d eri n g t h e v i ct i m ’ s t o o t h u s el es s

.

At t ri al

, D u k es rai s ed sel f-d efen s e, an d cal l ed Bl ack wel l an d E dward s as

wi t n es s es

. Du k es t es t i fi ed at t ri al t h at t h e v i ct im had a b o t t l e in h i s h an d

, an d al t h o u g h

Du k es “ d i d n ’ t k no w if [t h e v ict i m ] was g o in g t o h i t [Du kes ] wi t h t h e b o tt l e o r n o t ,”

Du k es “ m ad e t h e d eci s i o n ” t o h i t h i m fi rs t as h e cam e d o wn t h e s t ai rs

.

Fo l l owi n g t h e g ui l t y v erd i ct an d s en t en ce, Du k es fi l ed an am en ded m o t i o n fo r

n ew t ri al

, wh ich t he t ri al co u rt d en i ed . Th i s ap p eal fo l lo ws

.

W h ere t h e d efen s e fai l s t o m ak e an ob ject i o n u n d er OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 at t ri al

,

w e rev i ew a t ri al co u rt ’ s al l eg ed l y i m p ro p er co m

m en t s o n l y fo r p l ai n erro r. 3 “ T o

es t ab l i s h p l ai n erro r, [t h e] A p p el l an t m u s t p o i n t to a l eg al erro r th at was n ot

affi rm at i v el y wai v ed

, was cl ear an d o b v io u s b ey o n d reas on ab l e d i s pu t e, affect ed h i s

s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s , an d s eri o u s l y affect ed t h e fai rn es s , i n t eg ri t y

, o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n

o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s .” 4 If o n e p ro n g o f t h e p l ai n erro r t es t i s n o t s at is fi ed

, we n eed

3 S e e O C G A § 17 -8 -5 7 (b ); Cr en s h a w v. S t a te

, 3 4 1 Ga. Ap p. 4 0 6, 4 0 7 (8 0 1

SE2 d 9 2 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

4 Ba mb er g v. St a t e

, 30 8 Ga. 3 4 0

, 3 5 2 (5 ) (8 3 9 SE2 d 6 4 0 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

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

4n o t ad d res s t he rem ai n i n g p ro n g s

. 5 W i t h t h es e g u i d i n g p ri n ci p l es i n m i n d

, w e t u rn

n o w t o Du k es ’ s cl ai m s o f erro r.

1

. Du kes arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y m a k i ng i m p ro p er co m

m en t s o n

wi t n e s s t e s t i m o n y w i t hi n th e p res en ce of t h e ju ry i n v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7.

W e d i s ag ree.

OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 (a) (1 ) 6 p ro v i d es t h at “ [i ] t i s erro r fo r an y j u d ge, d uri n g an y

p h as e of an y cri m i n al cas e, t o ex p res s o r in ti m at e t o t h e ju ry t h e ju d g e’ s o p i n i o n as

t o w h et h er a fact at i s s u e h as or h as n o t b een p ro v ed or as t o t h e g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed .”

“ Th e p urp o s e o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 , at l eas t i n p art

, is t o p rev en t t he ju ry fro m b ei n g

i n fl u en ced b y

an y d i s cl o s ure o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o p i n i on reg ard i n g t h e cred i b i l i t y o f

a wi t n es s .” 7

(a) Ad mo ni s h i n g

t h e wi t nes s n o t

t o s p ecu l a t e. At t ri al , d efen s e co u n s el as k ed

Ed ward s wh at sh e s aw t he v i ct i m d o d u ri n g t h e al tercat i o n

. E d ward s t es t i fi ed t h at s h e

s aw t h e v i ct i m co m e t o ward Du kes wi t h a b ot t l e an d s aw Du k es h i t t h e v i ct i m

.

5 See W i l s o n v. S t at e , 2 9 1 Ga. 4 5 8, 4 6 0 (7 2 9 SE2 d 3 6 4 ) (2 0 1 2 ).

6 Du kes do es n ot co n t en d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ex pres s ed an o p i n io n as to Du k es ’ s

g u i l t

. Th erefo re, OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (c) d o es n o t ap p l y

.

7 Eva n s v. S t a t e

, 3 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 5 9 6

, 6 1 0 (1 2 ) (8 5 9 SE2 d 5 9 3 ) (2 02 1 ) (ci t at i o n

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

5Ed ward s t h en t es t i fi ed th at “ [t h e v i ct i m ] h ad t o h i t b ack fo r [Bl ack wel l ] t o j u m p i n [.] ”

At t hat p o i n t

, t he tri al co u rt t o l d Ed ward s, “ It ’ s wh at y o u s aw, n ot wh at y o u s pecu l at e.

Do n ’ t b e s p ecu l at i n g o n t h i n gs .” Ed ward s l at er cl ari fi ed t h at s h e “ s aw t h e v i ct i m h i t

l i ke o n e o r t w o t i m es [ ] ” wi t h a b eer b o t t l e.

“ It i s wel l es t ab l i sh ed th at a t ri al [co urt ] m ay p ro po u n d q u es t i o ns t o a wi t n es s

t o dev el o p t h e t ru t h o f t he cas e, t o cl ari fy tes t i m on y

, t o c o m m e n t o n p ert i n en t

ev i d en t i ary ru les [

, ] a n d t o ex erci s e i t s d i s cret i on wh en co n t ro ll i ng t h e co n d u ct o f

co u ns el o r wi t n es ses in ord er t o en fo rce i t s d u t y t o en s u re a fai r t ri al t o b o t h s i d es

. ” 8

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s rem ark s w ere m erel y ai m ed at i n fo rm i n g Ed ward s t h at s h e was

req u i red to t es t i fy fro m pers o n al k n o wl ed g e. T h u s

, Du k es h as fai l ed t o sh o w h o w t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s s t at em en t was erro r t h at was “ cl ear an d o b vi o u s b ey o n d reas o n ab l e

d i s p u t e,” an d s h e h as fai l ed t o p ro v e p l ai n erro r. 9 Nev ert h e l es s

, ev en i f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s rem ark s am o u nt ed t o erro r, t h e e r r o r h as n o t b een s h own to affect Du k es ’ s

8 Ba mb er g , 3 0 8 Ga. at 3 5 3 (5 ) (ci t at io n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

9 See i d.; s ee al so Di cken s v. S t a t e

, 2 8 0 Ga. 3 2 0, 3 2 4 (3 ) (6 2 7 SE2 d 5 8 7 ) (2 0 0 6 )

(h o l d i n g t h at t h e t ri a l c o u r t d i d n o t v i o l at e OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 b y i n s t ru ct i n g t h e

wi t n es s t o an s wer o nl y fro m h er o wn k n o wl ed g e an d n o t b as ed o n h ears ay ); Ro l l a n d

v. St a t e

, 3 2 1 G a. Ap p

. 6 6 1

, 6 6 4 (1 ) (a) (7 4 2 SE2 d 48 2 ) (2 01 3 ) (h o l d i ng t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s rem ark s ai m ed at prev en t i n g a w i t nes s fro m s p ecu lat i n g d id n o t v i o l at e OCGA

§ 1 7-8 -5 7 ).

6s u b s t an t i al ri g ht s, b ecau s e t h e wi t n es s ’ s cl ari fi cat i o n t hat s h e s aw t h e v i ct i m h i t b ack

“ o n e or t wo t i m es ” wi t h a b eer b o t t l e s u p p o rt ed Du kes ’ s s el f-d efen s e t h eo ry

. 1 0

Acco rd in g ly , t h i s cl ai m

o f erro r fai l s

.

(b ) In t er ject i n g d u r i n g th e wi t ne

ss’ s sile nc e

. N e xt, D uke s c o m pl ai n s t h at d u ri n g

a d i fferen t p o rt i o n o f Ed ward s ’ s t es t i m on y

, t he tri al co u rt i n terject ed wh en Ed ward s

s at s i l en t fo r a p eri o d o f t im e aft er t h e St at e as k ed h er a q u es t i o n:

THE STATE: An d at t h at p o i nt i n t im e, t h at i s wh en t h e v i ct i m fel l

d o wn t h e s tai rs o r at l eas t fel l d o wn ?

THE COURT: Y o u a r e g o i ng t o h av e to co m e up wi t h an an swer at

s o m e p o i n t i n t i m e. If y o u d o n ’ t k no w, ju s t s ay I d o n ’ t k no w.

EDW ARDS: Yeah

. I am

t ry i n g t o t h i n k

.

THE COURT: W e’ v e s at o u t h ere fo r 2 0 s eco n d s fo r y o u t o t ry to t h i n k

.

EDW ARDS: I’ m

s o rry

.

THE COURT: Ei t h er g i v e an an s wer o r s ay I d o n ’ t k n o w.

EDW ARDS: I d o n ’ t k n o w.

Du k es arg u es t h at t h ro u g h t h i s co l l o qu y , t h e t ri al co urt i m p li ed t h at Ed ward s

was “ hav i n g t o co m e u p wi t h an an s wer,” o r i n o th er w o r d s

, t h at s he was “ m ak i n g

s o m et h in g u p rat h er t h an rem em b eri n g b ack t o t h e i n ci d en t d at e.” Ou r rev i ew o f t h e

1 0 See, e.g

., S

mi t h v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 4 24

, 4 3 1 -4 3 2 (2 ) (d ) (7 8 8 SE2 d 4 3 3 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(h o l d i n g t h at an y erro r i n ad m i t t i n g e v i d en ce wh i ch ap p eared t o hav e ai d ed t h e

d efen s e was h arm l es s).

7t ran s cri p t rev eal s n o v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 becau s e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s co m m en t s

were m ad e fo r th e pu r p os e o f co n t ro ll i n g t h e tri al an d d i d n o t ex p res s an o p i n i o n

reg ard i n g t h e cred i b i l it y o f t he wi t n es s o r t h e g u i lt o f t h e a c c u s ed

. 1 1 Fu rt h erm o re,

Du k es ’ s cl ai m ag ai n fai l s t h e s e c o n d p l a in -erro r p ro n g

. OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 1 1 (a)

p ro v id es t h at “ t h e t ri al co u rt s h al l ex erci s e reas o n ab l e co n tro l o v er t h e m o d e

. . . o f

i n t erro g at i n g wi t n es s es an d p res en t i n g ev i d en ce s o as t o [m ] ak e t h e i n t erro g at i o n an d

p res en t at i o n e f

f e c t i v e fo r t h e as cert ai n m en t o f th e t ru t h [an d t o a] v o id n eed l es s

co n su m p t i o n o f t i m e[.] ” Th erefo re, Du k es h as n o t p oi n ted t o an y cl ear an d o b v i ou s

erro r, an d t h is cl ai m

i s wi t h ou t m eri t

.

(c) In s tr u ct i n g t h e wi t n es s t o g i ve a r es p o n s i ve a n s w e r

. Th ird

, Du k es rai s es

erro r wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s s t at em en t s d u ri ng Bl ack wel l ’ s t es t i m o n y

. Defen s e co u n s el

as k ed Bl ack w el l, “ W hat d i d y o u d o [d u ri n g t h e al t ercat io n] ? ” Bl ack wel l rep l i ed

, “ At

fi rs t I d i dn ’ t d o no t h i n g. I was try i n g t o k eep [Du k es an d t h e v i ct i m ] s ep arat ed

. T h at

i s wh at I was t ry i n g t o d o .” Th e t ri al co u rt th en i nt erject ed : “ T h e qu es t i o n i s : W h at

d i d y ou d o ? ” Bl ack wel l res p o n d ed

, “ W el l

, aft er a wh i l e y es

, I d i d li k e p u l l t h em ap art

an d t h at real l y was i t .”

1 1 See Al exa n d

er v. S ta t e , 2 9 4 Ga. 3 4 5, 3 4 8 (3 ) (7 5 1 SE2 d 4 0 8) (2 01 3 ).

8Du k es co n t en d s th at t h e t ri al c ou rt ’ s st at em en t i m p li ed t h at Bl ack wel l ’ s an s wer

“ was n o t t ru t h fu l o r w as n o t res p o ns i v e,” an d t h at th e t ri al co u rt wa s m a k i ng a

ju d g m en t o n Bl ack wel l ’ s cred i b i l i ty

. Becau s e Du k es ag ai n fai l s t o sat i sfy t h e s eco n d

p l ai n -erro r pro n g

, t hi s arg u m en t i s al s o wi t h o u t m eri t

. Defen s e co u n s el as k ed

Bl ack wel l w h at he act u al l y d id

, b u t h e res p o n d ed wi th w h at h e was “ t ry in g ” t o d o

. “ A

t ri al co u rt ’ s i ns t ru ct i on t o a wi tn es s t o g iv e res p o n s i ve an swers d oes n o t i n t i m at e an

o p i n i o n as t o t h e wi t n es s ’ s cred i b i l i t y [.] ” 1 2 Un d er t hes e ci rcu m s t an ces

, th e t ri al co u rt

p ro p erl y d i rect ed t h e wi t n es s ’ s at t en t i on t o t h e q u es t i on t h at was as k ed

. 1 3

(d ) Cl a r i f yi n g B l a ckwe l l ’

s tes t imo n

y. Fi n al l y

, Du k es co n t en d s t h at t h e

fo l l o w i n g s t at em en t s by t h e t r i al co u rt v i o l at ed OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 an d were an

i m p erm i s s i b le co m

m en t o n Bl ack wel l ’ s cred ib i l i t y :

THE STATE: Bu t [wh at ] y o u t es t i fi ed to earl ier t o d ay was t h at y o u were

wi t h Lat wo n Du k es wh i l e Lat wo n Du k es was at t ack i n g [t h e v i ct i m ] ; i s

t h at ri gh t ?

BLACKW ELL: Yes , s ir.

1 2 An t h o n y v. S t a t e , 2 82 Ga. Ap p . 4 5 7 , 4 5 8 (1 ) (6 38 SE2 d 8 7 7 ) (2 0 0 6).

1 3 See Fi n l ey v. S t a te

, 2 8 6 Ga. 4 7

, 5 1 (9 ) (a) (6 8 5 SE2 d 25 8 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ A t ri al

ju d g e m ay p ro p ou n d q u es t i o n s t o a wi t n es s t o d ev el op t h e t ru t h o f t h e c as e o r to

cl ari fy t es t i m o n y

, an d t h e ex t en t o f s uch an ex am i n a t i o n i s a m at ter fo r t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d is cret io n .”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

9TH E S T A TE: An d at n o p o i nt i n ti m e di d y o u ev er s t ri k e [t h e v i ct i m ]

d u ri ng t h e co u rs e o f t h is i n ci d en t ?

BLACKW ELL: I d i d

.

THE STATE: Ok ay . An d wh at y o u are s ay i ng i s t h at

—

THE COURT: Ho ld o n a s eco n d

. Li s t en t o wh at h e s ay s

. Yo u as k ed h i m

i f h e m ad e a s t at em en t an d I am n o t s u re h e d id n ’ t an s w er t h e u l t i m at e

q u es t i o n as o pp o s ed t o s ay i n g y es , I d i d m ak e a s tat em en t

.

D o y o u u n ders tan d wh at I’ m s ay i n g? Becau s e y o u had earl i er s a i d I

t es t i fi ed a cert ai n way

, an d th en I s ai d

, wel l

, t h e real i t y i s wh at d id y o u

real l y d o ? At t h at p o i n t in t i m e y o u s ai d , y es , I d i d h i t h i m

.

BLACKW ELL: Yes

.

Du k es h as ag ai n fai led t o p o i n t t o a cl ear an d o bv i o u s erro r. Vi ewed i n co n t ex t

,

t h e t ri al co u rt was at t em

p t i n g t o cl ari fy wh et h er Bl ack wel l m ean t t h at h e h ad h i t t h e

v i ct i m d u ri n g t h e i n ci d en t

— t h e “ u l t i m at e q ues t i o n ,” as referred t o b y t h e t ri al co u rt

— o r wh et h er Bl ack wel l m ean t t h at h e had n ot p rev io u s l y tes t if i ed t hat h e h ad h i t t h e

v i ct i m

. T h e t ri al co u rt ’ s q u es t i o n s were a perm is s i b l e ex erci s e o f it s di s cret i o n to

cl ari fy a w i t n es s ’ s t es t i m o n y an d n o t an ex p res s io n o r i nt i m at i o n o f o p i ni o n

. 1 4 Th u s

,

t h e t ri al co urt d i d n o t v i o l at e OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 , an d t h is cl ai m fai l s

.

1 4 See Fi n l ey , 2 8 6 Ga. at 5 1 (9 ) (a).

102

. D u k es ap p ears t o arg u e 1 5 t h at th e t ri al co u rt vi o l at ed OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 by

“ t es t i fy i n g as a wi tn es s i n t h e p res en ce o f t he ju ry [ ] ” d u ri n g t wo sp eci fi c ex ch an g es

.

Th e fi rs t ex ch an g e occu rred wh en t h e res p o n d in g o ffi cer tes t ifi ed t h at h e

arri v ed at t h e scen e wi t h two o t h er o ffi cers

, an d t h at “ o n e o f t h em was an F. T. O.”

In res p on s e, th e t r i a l c o u r t rem ark ed t h at “ F. T. O. m ean s Fi el d Trai n i n g Offi cer. I

can ’ t ev er g et an y

b o d y t o q u i t u s i n g acro ny m s t o t el l u s .” Th i s p a s s i n g

, i s o l at ed

s t at em en t

, wh i ch w as n ei t h er co n trad i ct ed n o r referred t o ag ai n d u r i n g t h e t ri al

, i s

u n l i k el y t o h av e p l ay ed an y ro l e i n t h e ju ry ’s v e r d i ct wh at s oev er, l et al o n e wh en

v i ewed i n co n t ex t wi t h al l o f t h e ev i d en ce o f g ui l t

. 1 6 Co n s eq u en t l y

, Du kes h as fai l ed

t o s h o w t h at t h e tri al co u rt ’ s rem ark affect ed Du k es ’ s s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s

, s o t hi s cl ai m

fai l s

.

Th e s eco n d e x c h an ge o ccu rred wh en t h e St at e as k ed Bl ack wel l wh et h er t h e

v i ct i m was “ k n o ck ed u n co n s ci o u s ” aft er Du kes p un ch ed t h e v i ct i m t h e fi rs t t i m e:

1 5 Th e o n l y rel ev an t cas e l aw t h at Du k es ci t es in su p p o rt of t h is cl ai m i s Fi n l ey

, 2 8 6 Ga. at 5 1 (9 ), wh ich i n vo l v es an al l eg ed v i o lat i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7.

Acco rd in g ly , we wi l l rev i ew t hi s en u m erat i o n u n d er t he s am e fram ewo rk

.

1 6 See Hi g h t o wer v. S t a t e

, 3 0 4 Ga. 7 5 5

, 7 5 9 (2 ) (b ) (8 2 2 SE2 d 2 7 3) (2 0 1 8 )

(h o l d i n g t h at th e t ri al co u rt ’ s s t at em en t t hat a d o ct o r was a “ freq uen t wi tn es s i n Fu l t o n

Co u rt ” was n o t cl ear an d o b v i o us erro r b ecau se t h e co m m en t i n d icat ed n o t h in g ab o ut

t h e d oct or’ s g u i l t, d id n ot rel at e t o a d i s p ut ed i s s u e, an d h ad n o l i kel i h o o d o f affect i n g

t h e o u tco m e o f t he t ri al ).

11BLACKW ELL: Un co n s ci o u s , m ean i ng y o u ai n ’ t m o v i n g , ri g h t?

THE STATE: Yes

.

BLACKW ELL: He was m o v i n g.

BLACKW ELL: Ok ay . So t h e v i ct i m –

THE COURT: Un co n sci o u s d o es n o t m ean t h at y o u ceas ed m o v i n g

, i t

m ean s t h at y o u l o s e co n s ci o u s n es s

, t h at y o u r ey es are cl o s ed

, y ou are

o u t . Yo ur b o d y

can b e d oi n g an y t h i n g

.

BLACKW ELL: W el l , n o

, h e was n ’ t u n co n s ci o u s. Hi s ey es were o p en

.

As an i n i t i al m at t er, Du k es ’ s arg u m en t fai l s th e s eco n d

, p lai n

- e r r o r p r o n g

b ecau s e th e t ri al co u rt ’ s s t at em en t s d i d no t co n s t i t u te a cl ear an d o b v i ou s leg al erro r.

Here, i t ap p ears t h at t h e wi t n es s was u n cl ea r a b o u t t h e m ean i n g o f t he wo rd

“ u n co n sci o u s ” an d g av e an am b i g u o u s an s wer. Un d er t h o s e ci rcu m s tan ces

, t h e t ri al

ju d g e was p erm i t t ed t o es s en t i al l y q u e s t i o n t h e wi t n es s t o d ev el o p th e tru t h o f t h e

cas e o r t o cl ari fy tes ti m on y

. 1 7 Fu rt h erm o re, fo l l o w in g t he t ri al co ur t ’ s i n t erv en t i o n,

Bl ack wel l t es t ifi ed t h at t h e v i ct i m w a s “ n o t un co n s ci o u s ” an d t h at h i s “ ey es were

o p en ” d u ri ng t h e fi g ht

. Becau s e t h i s t es t i m o n y s u p p o rt ed th e s el f-d e f e n s e t h eo ry

,

Du k es can n o t s h ow th at t he t ri al co u rt ’ s co m m en t s ad v ers el y affect ed Du k es ’ s

s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s

. 1 8 Th u s , t hi s cl ai m fai l s

.

1 7 See Fi n l ey , 2 8 6 Ga. at 5 1 (9 ) (a).

1 8 See S mi t h

, 2 9 9 Ga. at 4 3 1 -4 3 2 (2 ) (d ).

123

. Nex t

, Du k es arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt “ ex i t [ed ] i t s ro l e as a n eu t ral arb i t er

o r referee i n t h e c a s e a n d co ach [ed ] th e p ro s ecu t o r o n h o w t o t ry h i s cas e[,] ”

ren d eri n g t h e t ri al u nfai r. D u k es s p eci fi cal l y i d en ti fi es t h ree areas o f al l eg ed

co ach i n g: t wo i n v o l v i n g t h e t ri a l co u rt ’ s co m m en t s o n t h e ad m i s s i on o f Ed ward s ’ s

an d Bl ack wel l ’ s cert i fi ed co n v i ct i on s fo r t h ei r i n v o l v em en t i n t h e v i ct im ’ s b eat i n g,

an d o n e i n v o l v i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n t o th e St at e o n ho w t o p ro perl y u s e a

t ran s cri p t t o i m

p each Du k es . W e fi n d n o erro r.

At t h e o ut s et

, we n o te t h at Du k es n ei t h er o b j ect ed t o th e t ri al ju d g e’ s co m m en t s

n o r m o v ed t o recu s e t h e ju d g e bel o w an d th u s fai l ed t o p ro p erl y pres erv e th i s cl ai m

o f erro r fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew. 1 9 Nev ert h el es s, “ [e] v en as su m i n g th at b i as o n t h e p art

o f a t ri al ju d g e s o p ro fo u n d an d p erv as i v e as t o i m pl i cat e t h e co n s t i t u t i o nal g u aran t ee

o f d u e p r o ces s n eed n o t b e rai s ed i n th e t ri al co u rt b y w ay o f a t i m el y m o t i o n to

recu s e,” 2 0 t h i s cas e p res en t s n o s u ch b i as

.

[T] h e co n s t i t u ti o n al g u ara n t ee o f d u e p ro ces s i s n o t co n cern ed

wi t h m e r e a p p e aran ces o f p art i al i ty

. To t h e co n t rary

, d u e p ro ces s i s

1 9 S e e Du n n v. St a t e

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 8 (1 ) (7 5 6 SE2 d 1 7 ) (2 0 14 ); s e e a l s o

Pya tt v. St a t e

, 2 9 8 G a. 7 4 2

, 7 4 9 -7 5 0 (5 ) (7 8 4 SE2 d 7 5 9 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at a

p art y m u s t p ro m p t l y m o v e to recu s e o n ce l earn i ng o f p o t en t i al g ro u n d s fo r

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n o f a t ri al ju d g e).

2 0 Pya t t , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 50 (5 ).

13co n cer n e d w i t h a ct u a l b i as

, an d ab s en t a sh o w i n g o f act u al b i as

, d ue

p ro ces s req u i res recu s al o n l y i n part icu l ar ci rcu m s t an ces i n wh i ch th e

p ro b ab i l i t y o f act u al b i as o n t h e p art of t he ju d g e or d eci si o n m ak er i s t o o

h i g h t o b e co n s t i t u t i on al l y t o l erab l e. 2 1

M o reo v er, “ [t ] h e law p res u m es h o n es t y an d i n t eg ri t y o n t h e p art o f t h o s e s erv i n g as

ad ju d i cat o rs [.] ” 2 2 Du k es h as fai l ed t o reb u t t h at p res u m p t io n

.

Du k es fi rs t co n t en ds t h at t h e t ri al co u rt i m p ro p e r l y co ach ed t h e p ro s ecu t o r

fo l l o w i n g Ed w ard s ’ s t es t i m on y

. Du ri n g a b en ch co n feren ce, t h e t ri al co u rt st at ed t h at

i t was “ co n fo u n ded ” by t h e St at e’ s fai l u re t o “ tel l t h e ju ry t h at [Ed ward s ] p l ed g ui l t y

y es t erd ay t o t h e ch arg es [ ] ”aft er Ed ward s t es t i fi ed th at “ s h e [was ] ju s t s i t t i n g [t ] h ere

wat ch i n g t hes e t h i n g s go on [,] ” an d su g g es t ed t h at d o in g s o wo ul d h a v e b e en “ t h e

m o st p o werfu l p art o f an y cro s s -ex am in at i o n [.] ” Th e St at e res p o n d ed t h at i t h ad

i n t en d ed t o i n t ro d u ce E d ward s ’ s co n v i ct i o n

, b u t “ fai led t o do th at .” Th e t ri al co u rt

s t at ed t h at i t was “ v ery

, very

, very

, v ery

, very fru s t rat ed u p h ere ab o u t al l o f t h i s [,] ”

an d as k ed th e St at e wh et h er i t i n t en d ed to recal l Ed ward s

, t o w h i ch t he p r o s e c u t o r

an s wered y es

. A few m i n u t es l at er, t h e tri al co urt s t at ed th at b as ed o n Ed ward s ’ s t ri al

2 1 Ba r n et t v. S t a te

, 30 0 Ga. 5 5 1

, 5 5 4-5 5 5 (2 ) (7 96 SE2 d 6 5 3 ) (2 0 1 7) (ci t at i on s

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

2 2 Pya t t , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 53 (5 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

14t es t i m o ny

, i t t h o u g h t t h e p ro s ecu t o r co ul d as k h er “ i f s h e pl ed g u il t y y es t erd ay an d

ad m i t t ed t o m ak in g an ad m is s i o n [,] ” an d t h en as k ed t h e p ro s ecu t o r, “ y o u g o t a fi rs t

o f fen d er, d o n ’ t we, wi th [Ed ward s ] ? ” W h en t he St at e res po n ded affi rm at i v el y

, t h e

t ri al ju d g e i n fo rm ed th e St at e t h at i n t h at cas e, t h e im p each m en t was “ n o t ab o u t h er

h av in g a co n v i ct i o n ,” b ut “ wh at [ E d w a r d s ] d id o u t h ere i n o p en co urt y es t erd ay in

rel at i o n s h i p t o t h i s cas e[.] ”

D u k e s co n t en d s t h at t h ere were “ m ul t i p l e i ss u es wi t h t h i s co n v ers at i o n [ ]”

b ecau s e th e t ri al ju d g e d en o t ed a “ team effo rt ” b y r e f e r r i n g t o h i m s el f an d t h e

p ro s ecu to r as “ we,” an d in ap p ro p ri at el y i n s t ru ct ed t h e p ro secu t o r on h ow to i m p each

Ed ward s wh en s h e was recal l ed , i n cl u d i ng i n st ru ct io n s o n wh at q ues t i o n s t o as k

.

In co n t ex t , h o wev er, t he t ri al ju d g e’ s u s e o f “ we” was a referen ce t o b o t h t h e

ju d g e an d t h e p ro s ecu t o r b ei n g p res en t wh en Ed w ard s en t ered h er g u i lt y p l ea, an d

t h erefo re i s n o t i n di cat i ve o f act u al b i as

. M o reo v er, t h e ju d g e’ s i ns t ru ct i o n s o n h o w

t o i m p each Ed ward s ad dres s ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ap p aren t co n cern t h at t h e St at e l i m i t

i t s u s e o f t h e fi rs t-o ffen d er p l ea t o a p erm i s s i bl e p u rp os e. “ [T] h e t ri al ju d g e i s ch arg ed

wi t h en s u ri n g t h at t h e ru l es o f ev i d en ce an d p ro ce d u r e are fo l l o wed

, an d t h at t h e

p ro ceed in g s are b o th o rd erl y an d fai r.” 2 3 Th u s

, t h e tri al co u rt ’ s d eci s io n t o m ak e t h e

2 3 Jo h n s o n v. S ta t e , 2 7 8 Ga. 3 4 4

, 3 4 8 (3 ) (6 02 SE2 d 6 2 3 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

15p ro s ecu to r “ cl ear ab o u t wh at [h e co u l d ] an d [co u ld n ot ] d o[ ] ” wi t h t he ev i d en ce was

p ro p er, an d d o es no t s u pp o rt a fi n d i n g o f act u al b i as

. 2 4 A c c o r d i ng l y

, t h i s cl ai m i s

wi t h o u t m eri t

.

As t o t h e s eco n d area o f al l eg ed co ach i n g

, t h e reco rd s h o w s t h at t h e p ro s ecu t o r

as k ed Bl ack wel l s ev eral q u es t io n s a b o u t p l ead in g g u i l t y t o h i s i n v o l v em en t i n t h e

i n ci d en t

. At a b en ch co n feren ce, t h e t ri al co u rt as k ed t h e p ro s ecu to r wh y h e d i d n ot

i m p each Bl ack wel l wi t h h i s cert i fi ed co n v ict i o n

, to w h i ch t h e pro s ecu t or an s wered

t h at “ [i ] t was [h i s ] fai l u re t o d o t h at [,] ” an d t h at h e “ f e l t l i k e [h e] co u l d ju s t cro s s

ex am i n e [Bl ack w el l ] ” o n t h e s u b ject

. Th e t ri al co u rt th en a s k e d t h e p ro s ecu t o r

wh et h er h e t h o u g h t t h at o b t ai n i n g a cert i fi ed co n vi ct i o n o f a co -d efen dan t was

“ n eed ed i n p rep arat i o n o f th e cas e[,] ” t o wh i ch th e p ro secu t o r res po n d ed

, “ I d o t h i n k

i t ’ s t h e b es t p o l i cy t o d o th at .” T h e p ro s ecu t o r t h en req u es t ed t o recal l Bl ack wel l an d

Ed ward s

, bu t t h e t ri al co u rt res p o n d ed th at t h e St at e “ can ’ t d o t h at d uri n g t h e

d efen d an t ’ s cas e[,] ” an d ex p l ai n ed t h at t he St at e wo u l d h av e t o m ak e s u ch a m o t i o n

“ at t he co n cl u s i o n wh en [t h e d efen s e] res t [s ] .” Lat er, wh en t h e t ri al co u rt al l o wed t h e

2 4 See Bo nn er

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

16St at e t o reo p en th e ev i d en ce, 2 5 t h e p ro s ecu t o r at t e m pt ed t o ten d er Bl ack wel l ’ s

cert ifi ed co nv ict i o n wi t h o u t fi rs t i n t ro d u ci n g i t

. Th e t ri al co u rt co rrect ed t h e

p ro s ecu to r b y t el l i n g h i m

, “ Yo u h av e t o h av e t h e wi t n es s i den t i fy St at e’ s [ex h i b i t ] 6

[i ] f h e k n o ws wh at i t i s.”

Du k es arg u es o n ap p eal t h at b y “ ai d [i ng ] ” an d “ as s is t [i n g ] ” t he p ro s ecu t o r, t h e

t ri al co u rt “ s t ep p ed o ut o f i t s ro l e as a n eu t ral arb it er[.] ” W e d i sag ree. W h i l e

“ co ach i n g ” b y t h e t ri al j u d ge “ mi g h t be i n d i cat i ve o f an act u a l b i a s i n fav o r o f t h e

St at e,” h ere, i t ap pears t o be i n d i cat i v e o f “ ju d i ci al fru s t rat i o n ” wi t h th e p ro s ecu t i n g

at t o rn ey fo r n ei t h er b ei n g p rep ared n o r p ro p erl y i n t ro du ci n g ev i d en ce. 2 6 In deed

, fro m

t h e b eg i n n i n g of t ri al

, th e ju d g e ex p res sed co n cern th at t h e lawy ers d i d n o t “ act l i k e

[t hey ] u n ders t [o o ] d t h e fu n d am en t al s .” Un d er t h es e c ir c um sta n c e s

, this so rt o f al l eg ed

“ co ach i n g ” fai l s t o ri s e t o t h e l ev el o f act u al b i as

. 2 7

Th e t h i rd i n s t a n c e occu rred d u ri n g t h e St at e’ s cro ss -ex am i nat i o n o f Du k es

,

wh en t he p ro secu t o r at t em p t ed t o i m

p each Du k es ’ s t ri al t es t i m o n y wi t h p r i o r

2 5 Defen se co u ns el affi rm at i vel y s t at ed t hat t h ere was n o ob ject io n t o t h e t ri al

co u rt reo p en i n g t h e ev i d en ce fo r t h i s p urp o s e.

2 6 See Pya t t , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 5 2 , n . 1 2 (5 ).

2 7 See i d

.

17t es t i m o ny

. Aft er t he p ro s ecu t or q u es t i o n ed Du k es ab o u t Du k es ’ s “ earl ier” t es t i m o ny

fro m a pri o r p ro ceed i n g th at Du k es “ d i d n ’ t ev en recei v e an y i n ju ri es fro m th i s fi g h t ,”

Du k e s s e e m e d t o b e co n fu s ed

, as k i n g

, “ W h en was earl i er? ” an d “ I s ai d I d i d n ’ t

recei v e n o i n

ju ry ? ” At t h at p o i n t

, t h e t ri al co u rt i n t erject ed an d t o l d t he p ro s ecu t or to

s h o w Du k es “ ex act l y ” wh at D uk es s ai d i n t he t ran s cri p t “ an d let ’ s q u i t go i n g b ack

an d aro u n d .”

“ W h en a ju d g e sees a l awy er p res en t i ng h i s c a s e i n a way t h at s eem s t o b e

was ti n g t h e t i m e o f th e ju ry o r co n fu s i n g t h e ju ro rs

, we are aware o f no ab s ol u t e ru l e

ag ai n s t t h e ju d g e s ay i n g s o m et h i n g t o t h e l awy er, al t h o u g h t h e ju d g e m u s t t ak e care

n o t t o d o s o b y way o f an i m p erm i s s i bl e ex p art e co n v ers at i on .” 2 8 Here, t h e al l eg ed

co ach i n g o ccu rred i n o p en co u rt an d i n an effo rt t o m o v e al o n g t h e t es t i m o ny

. Th u s

,

t h i s ex ch an g e di scl o s es n o act u al b i as

, an d D u k es ’ s cl ai m o f an u n fai r t ri al in

v i o l at i o n o f t h e co n s t i t u t i on al g u aran t ee o f d u e p ro ces s fai ls

. 2 9

4

. Fi n al l y

, we t u rn t o Du k es ’ s co n t en t i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u r t e r r e d by

i n t erp o s i ng ob

ject i o n s on th e St at e’ s b eh al f an d t h at b y di s al l o wi n g th e l ead i n g

2 8 Pya t t , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 52 , n . 1 2 (5 ).

2 9 See i d . at 7 5 1 (5 ).

18q u es ti o n s

, t h e t ri al co u rt “ as s u m ed t h e ro l e o f ad v o cat e” in fro n t o f t h e ju ry

, wh i ch

“ was h arm fu l .”

Du k es i d en t i fi es t w o i n s t an ces w h en t h e t ri al co u rt ad m o n i s hed d efen s e

co u ns el fo r as k i n g lead i n g q u es t i o n s ab sen t an ob ject io n b y t h e St at e. Th e fi rs t t i m e,

t h e t ri al co u rt to l d defen s e co u n s el : “ No w, l i s t en t o m e f o r a seco n d

. Yo u g o t real

u p s et wh en y o u cl ai m [ed ] t h e St at e w as l ead i n g [i t s ] wi t n es s an d d o in g ev ery t h i n g.

So y o u can ’ t d o t h e ex act s am e t h i n g y o u were co m p l ai n i n g t h e St at e [was ] d o i n g.

Yo u m ay as k [t h e wi t n es s ] q u es t i on s bu t n o t l ead h er i n to t h e a n s w e r wh i ch i s

co n tai n ed i n y o u r q u es t i o n.” Th e s eco nd t i m e, t he t ri al co u rt s tat ed : “ Co u n s el o r, y o u

k n o w, I h av e h ad t h e s t at em en t wi t h y o u b efo re. Th e wi t n es s es h av e t o t es t i fy . Yo u

can o n l y as k an o p en -en ded q u es t i o n

, n o t a q u es t i o n t h at t h e an s wer i s act u al l y i n t h e

q u es ti o n ju s t as y o u ju s t as k ed

. So p l eas e ad h ere t o t h at .”

To t h e ex t en t Du k es arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt was b i as ed ag ai ns t th e d efen s e,

Du k es di d no t m o ve t o recu s e th e t ri al co u rt an d h as t hu s fai led t o p ro p erl y p res erv e

t h i s i s s u e fo r rev i ew. 3 0 M o r e o ver, t h e reco rd d is cl os es n o act u al b i as

. 3 1 In s t ead

, t h e

t ri al co urt p ro p erl y ex erci s ed i t s d i s cret i on t o co n t ro l t h e c o n d u ct o f co u n s el by

3 0 See Pya t t

, 29 8 Ga. at 7 4 9 -7 5 0 (5 ).

3 1 See i d . at 7 5 2 -7 5 3 (5 ).

19p rev en ti n g d efen s e co u n s el fro m as k in g l ead i n g q u es t i o ns on d i rect ex am i n a t i o n

. 3 2

Du k es h as fai l ed to s ho w t hat t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s rem ark s were “ h arm fu l

, ” co n s i d eri n g

t h at o n bo t h o ccas i o n s

, d efen se co u n s el was st i ll p erm i t t ed t o as k t he q u es t i o n s aft er

rewo rd in g t h em . Th u s , t h i s en um erat ed erro r i s wi t h o ut m eri t.

Ju d g men t a f fi r med

. Do

yl e, P. J., co n cu r

s

. S en i o r Ap p el l a te Ju d

g e Her b er t E.

Ph i p ps co n cu r

s f u l l y i n Di vi s i o n s 1 , 2

, a n d 4 a n d co n cu r s s p eci a ll y i n Di vi s i o n 3

.

3 2 See Ba m b er

g

, 3 0 8 Ga. at 3 5 3 (5 ).

20A2 2 A0 25 8 . DUKES v . THE STATE.

P H I P P S , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e, co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

.

I co n cu r fu l l y i n Di v is i o ns 1

, 2

, an d 4 o f t h e m ajo ri ty o pi n io n

, b u t I co n cu r in

t h e j u d gm en t o n l y i n D i vi s i on 3

. I wri t e s ep arat el y b ecau s e w h i l e I ag ree t h at Du k es

h as fai l ed t o s h o w b i as s u ffi ci en t to s u p p o rt a d u e pro ces s v i o l at i on w i t h res p ect to

t ri al j u d ge co m

m en ts al l e g ed l y co ach i n g t he p ro secu t o r i n t h i s cas e, I d o n o t ag ree

wi t h al l t h at i s s ai d i n Di v i s i o n 3 an d wi s h t o h i gh l i g h t m y t h o u g h t s wi t h res p ect to

t h at Di v i s i o n

.

As t h e m ajo ri t y co rrect l y p o i n t s o u t

, D u k es fa il ed to pres erv e an y arg um en t t h at

t h e t ri al ju d g e co ach ed t h e p ro s ecu to r an d th at t h e d efen d an t’ s t ri al

, t h erefo re, was n ot

fai r an d i m

p art i al

. “ T h e Geo rg i a Co d e of J u d i ci al Co n d u ct s t at es t hat ju d g es m u s t

av o id al l i m

p ro p ri et y an d t h e ap p earan ce o f i m p ro p ri et y

. . . . Ad d i t i o n al l y

, j u d g es are

req u i red to d i s qu al i fy t h em s el v es i n an y p ro ceed i n g i n wh i ch t hei r i m p art i al i t y m i g ht

reas on ab l y b e qu es t i o n ed .” Zer b a r i n i v. S ta t e

, 3 59 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 3

, 1 6 9 (5 ) (8 5 5 SE2 d8 7 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n om i t ted ). In t hi s reg ard

, a t ri al ju d g e sh o u l d n ot

g i v e ad v ice t o a l awy er ab o u t t ri al s t rat eg y i n a cas e i n wh i ch th e ju dg e i s p res i d i n g

b ecau s e t h e g i v in g o f s u ch ad v i ce co u l d creat e an ap p e a r a n ce o f i m p art i al i t y

. See

Pya tt v. S t a t e

, 2 9 8 Ga. 7 4 2

, 7 5 1 (5 ) (7 8 4 SE2 d 7 59 ) (2 0 1 6); acco rd Cr o mer v. S t a t e

,

3 4 8 Ga. Ap p . 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 (2 ) (8 20 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (2 0 1 8).

Ho wev er, “ [w] h en a p art y l earn s o f p o ten t ial g ro un d s fo r d i s qu al i fi cat i o n o f a

t ri al j u d ge, h e m

u s t p ro m pt l y m o v e t o recu se o r t h e i s s u e o f d i s q ual i fi cat i o n i s n ot

p res erv ed fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew.” Kel l er v. S ta t e

, 3 0 8 Ga. 4 9 2

, 5 0 7 (1 0 ) (8 42 SE2 d 2 2 )

(2 0 2 0); acco rd Du n n v. S ta te , 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p. 8 8 8

, 8 8 8 (1 ) (7 5 6 SE2 d 1 7 ) (2 0 1 4 ). As

t h e Su prem e Co u rt o f Geo rg ia ex p lai n ed i n Kel l er

,

t o h o l d o t herwi s e wo u l d b e t o s an ct i o n g am es m an s h i p

. M o reo v e r

, th e

r e q u i r e m en t t h at a m o t i o n t o recu s e b e fi l ed p ro m p t l y i s i n t en d ed t o

p ro m o t e ju d i ci al eco n o m y

, t h at i s

, t o en s u re th at l o n g an d co s t l y

p ro ceed i n g s b efo r e a d i s q u al i fi ed ju d g e are av oi d ed

. Th e i dea t h at a

p art y co u l d al l o w a ju d g e wh o m t h e part y b el i ev es t o b e d i s qu al i fi ed t o

co n t i n u e t o p res i d e o v er t h e cas e wi t h o ut o b j ect i o n

, o n l y l at er t o urg e

t h e d i s q ual i fi cat i on

, i s i nco n s i s t en t wi t h t he p ri nci p l es o f fai r p l ay an d

ju d i ci al eco n o m

y t h at are em

bo d i ed i n t h e req u i rem en t t hat a m o t i o n t o

recu se b e fi l ed p ro m

p t l y

.

23 0 8 Ga. at 5 0 7 (1 0 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i tt ed ); acco rd Pya tt

, 29 8 Ga. at

7 4 9 -7 5 0 (5 ). See al s o Un i fo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l e 2 5 .1 (req u i ri n g recu s al m o t i o n

an d acco m

p an y i n g affi d av i t s t o b e fi led wi t h in fi ve d ay s a f t e r f i r s t l earn i n g o f t h e

b as i s fo r d i s q u al i fi cat i o n )

. H ere, Du k es n ev er ob ject ed t o t h e t ri al ju d g e co m m en t s

al l eg ed l y co ach in g t h e p ro s ecu t o r, no r d i d Du kes m o v e f o r a recu s al

. Un d er o u r

p reced en t s

, t h erefo re, Du k es h as fai l ed t o p res erv e fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew an y cl ai m o f

e rro r ab o u t th e p art i al i t y o f th e t ri al ju d g e i n t h is cas e. See Kel l er

, 3 0 8 G a

. a t 5 0 7

(1 0 ); Pya t t , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 4 9-7 50 (5 ); Du n n , 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p . at 8 8 8 (1 ).

M o reo v er, wh i l e Du k es d et ai l s t h e t ri al ex cerp t s al l eg ed l y d em on s t rat i n g

i m p ro p er co ach i n g o r p art ial i t y b y t h e tri al ju d g e, Du k es d o es n o t ci t e a s i n g l e

rel ev an t d eci s i o n o r s t at u t e in s u p p o rt o f t h e arg u m en t

, 1 a n d t h e refo re D u k es h as

ab an do n ed t h is cl ai m

. See De Ca s t ro v. Du r r el l

, 2 9 5 Ga. A p p

. 1 9 4

, 2 04 (3 ) (6 7 1

SE2 d 2 44 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (d eem i n g an en u m erat i o n o f erro r ab an d o ned wh ere t h e ap p el l an t

1 Du k es referen ces Fi n l ey v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 4 7 (6 8 5 SE2 d 25 8 ) (2 0 0 9 ), i n t h e

s t an d ard o f rev i ew, b u t t h at d eci s i o n ad d res ses OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 an d a t ri al ju d g e’ s

ex p res s i o n o r i nt i m at i o n o f o p i n i o n reg ard i n g m at t ers p ro v ed o r t h e d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t

,

n o t t h e t ri al ju d g e s tep p i n g o u t o f h i s ro l e as a n eu t ral arb i t er i n o t h e r w a ys

, as

h ap pen ed h ere. 2 8 6 G a. at 5 1 -5 2 (9 ). In ad d i t i o n

, wi t h i n t h e arg um en t s ect io n o f t h e

ap p el l at e b ri ef d ev o t ed t o t h e i s s u e, Du k es p ro v id es o n l y a s in g l e, i rrel ev an t ci t at i o n:

“ If b ei n g a p ro s ecu t o r was a cri m e, t h e ju d ge wo u l d h av e b een a p art y t o t h at cri m e

b y h i s co n du ct as v i ewed t h r o u g h t h e l en s of Geo rg ia’ s p art ies t o a cri m e s t at u t e,

OCGA § 1 6 -2 -2 0

. ” T h i s s t at u t e d o es n ot ad d res s t h e i m p art ial i t y o f a t ri al j u d g e at al l

.

3fai l ed t o ci t e an y l eg al au t h o ri t y i n s u p p o rt t hereo f); s ee Co urt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (c)

(2 ) (“ An y en u m erat i o n o f erro r t hat i s n o t s u p p o r t ed i n t h e b ri ef b y ci t at i o n o f

au t h o ri t y o r arg u m en t m ay b e d eem ed ab an do n ed .”). See al s o Gr es h a m v. Ha r r i s

, 3 4 9

Ga. A p p. 1 34

, 1 3 8 (1 ), n. 9 (8 25 SE2 d 5 1 6 ) (2 01 9 ) (l eg al an al y s i s “ i s

, at a m i n i m u m

,

a d i scu s s i o n o f t he ap p ro p ri at e l a w as ap p l i ed t o t h e rel ev an t fact s ”) (ci t at i o n,

p u n ct u at i o n

, an d em

p h as i s om i tt ed ). In l i gh t o f D u k es ’ s fai l u re t o p res erv e b el o w an y

arg u m en t reg ard i ng t h e p art i al it y o f t h e t ri al ju d g e o r s u p p or t t h i s arg u m en t i n t h e

d efen d an t ’ s ap p el l a t e b ri ef, t h e m ajo ri t y i m p ro p erl y reach ed t h e m eri t s o f t h e

arg u m en t

. See Kel l er

, 3 0 8 Ga. at 5 0 7 (1 0 ) (fi nd i n g — wi t h ou t rev i ewi n g t h e i s s u e fo r

p l ai n erro r

— t h at t h e d efen d an t fai l ed t o p r e s e r v e a cl ai m of erro r reg ard i n g t ri al

ju d g e i m p art i al i ty ).

No n et h el es s

, I t u rn t o t h e m eri t s o f t h is cas e t o em p h as i ze t h e p ro p er an al y s i s

a n d h i g h l i g h t m

y t h o u gh t s w i t h res p ect t o t h at an al y s i s

. In do i n g s o

, I m u s t as s u m e

t h at Du k es ’ s ap p el l at e b ri ef m ay b e read t o rai s e a d ue p ro ces s ch al l en g e bas ed o n t h e

t ri al ju d g e’ s i m

p ro p er co ach i n g an d t h at “ b ias o n t h e p art o f a t ri al ju d g e s o p ro fo u n d

an d p erv as i v e as t o im

p l i cat e t h e co n s t i t u t i o n al g u aran t ee o f d u e pro ces s n eed n o t b e

rai s ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt b y way o f a t i m el y m o t i on t o recu s e.” Pya tt

, 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 5 0

(5 ). W i th t h es e as s u m

p t i o ns i n m i n d

, I n o t e at th e ou t s et t h at wh il e I ag ree wi t h t h e

4m ajo ri ty ’ s co n cl u si o n t h at Du k es fai l ed t o d e m onst rat e b i as s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a d u e

p ro ces s v i o l at i o n

, I bel i ev e t he t ri a l j u d g e’ s co m m en t s i n t h i s cas e

— at leas t wi th

r e s p e c t t o co ach i n g t h e p ro s ecu t o r o n t h e ad m i s si o n o f Ed ward s ’ s an d Bl ack wel l ’s

cert ifi ed co n v i ct i o n s

— cl earl y creat ed an ap p earan ce o f p art i al i ty

, an d su ch co ach i n g

h as n o p l ace i n a cri m i n al t ri al

. To t h e ex t en t t h at t h e m ajo ri t y co ncl u d es o t h erwi s e

(o r m i n i m i zes t h e i m

pro per co ach i n g ), I s t ro n g l y d i s ag ree.

Th at b ei n g s ai d

, i t i s wel l s et t l ed th at “ n o t ev ery v io l at i o n o f t h e Co d e o f

J u d i ci al Co n d u ct i m

p li cat es t h e co n s t i t ut i o na l g u a ran t ee of d ue p ro ces s

. ” Cr o mer

,

3 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 1 7 (2 ) (ci t at i o n a n d p u nct u at i o n o m i t ted ). As t h e m ajo ri ty p o i n t s

o u t

,

t h e co n s t i t u t i o nal g u aran t ee o f du e pro ces s i s n o t co ncern ed wi t h m ere

ap p earan ces o f p art i al i ty

. To t h e co nt rary

, d u e p ro ces s i s co n cern ed w i t h

a ct u al b i as

, an d ab sen t a s h o wi n g o f act u al b ias

, d u e p ro ces s req u i res

recu sal o n l y i n p art i cu l ar ci rcu m s t an ces in wh i ch t h e p ro b ab i l i t y o f

act u al b i as o n t h e p art o f t h e ju d g e o r d e c i s io n m ak er i s t o o h i g h t o be

co n s t i t ut i o n al l y

t o l erab l e.

Pya tt , 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 5 1 (5 ) (ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

In s t an ces o f act u al bi as i n cl u d e w h e n a ju dg e h as a di rect o r s u b s t an t i al

p ecu ni ary i n t eres t in t h e o u t co m e o f a c a s e

, w h en a ju d g e h as ex ecu t i v e

5res p o n s i b i l i t ies fo r t h e fi n an ces o f an o rg an i zat i o n wi th a d i rect p ecu n i ary i n t eres t in

t h e o ut co m e, wh en a p ers o n wi t h a p ers o n al s tak e i n a p art i cu l ar cas e had a s i g n i fi can t

i n fl u en ce i n p l aci n g t h e ju dg e o n th e cas e b y rai s i n g fu n d s o r d i rect i n g t h e ju d g e’ s

el ect io n cam

pai g n

, wh en t h e ju d g e p ers o n al l y w a s res p o n s i b l e fo r b ri ng i n g t h e

ch arg es t o b e t ri ed

, or wh en a ju d g e h as been s o p ers o n al l y v i l i fi ed b y a p art y ch arg ed

wi t h co n t em

p t t hat he n eces s ari l y b eco m es i n v o l v ed i n a b i t t er co n t ro v ers y wi t h t h e

co n tem n o r. Pya t t

, 2 98 Ga. at 75 1 -7 5 2 (5 ); Cr omer

, 3 4 8 Ga

. A p p

. at 1 1 7-1 1 8 (2 );

co m p are Ba r net t v. S t at e

, 3 0 0 Ga. 5 5 1

, 5 5 5 -5 5 6 (2 ) ( 7 9 6 S E 2 d 6 5 3 ) (2 01 7 ) (t ri al

ju d g e’ s p ri or rep res en t at i on o f a v i ct i m i n an u n rel at ed m at t er d i d n o t d em o n s t rat e

act u al b i as ). Here, t h ere i s n o al l eg at i o n o r ev i d en ce th at t h e t ri al ju d g e h ad a p ers o n al

o r p ecu ni ary i n t eres t i n t h e cas e o r an y rel at i o n s h i p wi t h a p art y i n t h e cas e s u ch t h at

Du k e s ’s d u e p ro ces s ri g h t was i m p l i cat ed d u e to act u al bi as o n t h e part of t h e t ri al

ju d g e.

In t h e ab s en ce o f act u al b i as

, h o wev er, a rev i ewi n g co u rt m u s t d et erm i n e

wh et h er a d u e p ro ces s v io l at i o n o ccu rred b y ex am in i ng wh et her t he “ p ro bab i l i t y o f

act u al b i as ” o n t h e p art o f th e t ri al ju d g e “ is t o o h i g h t o b e co ns t i t u t i o n al l y t o l erab l e.”

Pya tt

, 2 9 8 G a. at 7 5 1 (5 ) (ci t at io n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th i s s t an d ard “ as k s n ot

wh et h er a ju d g e h arb o rs an a c t u al

, s u b ject i v e b i as

, b u t in s t ead wh et h er, as an

6o b

ject i ve m at t er, t h e av erag e ju d g e i n h i s p o s i t io n is l i k el y t o b e n eu t ral

, o r wh et h er

t h ere i s an u nco n s t i t u t i o n al p o t en t i al fo r b i as .” W i l l ia ms v. Pen n s

yl va n i a , 5 7 9 U. S.

1

, 8 (II) (A) (1 3 6 SCt 1 8 9 9

, 1 9 5 LE2 d 1 3 2) (2 0 1 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed );

s ee al s o i d

. at 8 -1 1 (II) ( A) ( a n u n co n s t i tu t i o n al p o t en t i al fo r b ias o ccu rs wh en a

fo rm er pro s ecu t o r wh o m ad e a cri t i cal deci s i o n i n a cas e l at er s erv es as a ju d g e i n t h at

cas e). “ Th e al l eg ed bi as of t he ju d g e m u s t b e o f s u ch a n at u re an d in t en s it y t o p rev en t

t h e d efen d an t fro m o b tai n i n g a t ri al u ni n fl u en ced b y t h e c o u rt ’ s preju d g m en t .”

Ba r net t , 3 0 0 Ga. at 5 5 4 (2 ) (ci tat i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). In t h i s reg ard

,

t h e al l eg ed b ias m

u s t s tem fro m an ex tra-ju d i ci al s o u rce an d res u l t i n an

o p i n i o n o n th e m eri t s o n s o m e b as i s o t h er t han wh at t h e ju d g e learn ed

fro m h i s p art i ci pat i o n i n t h e cas e. An y an a l y s i s o f t h e n eces s i ty fo r

recu sal i s n eces s ari l y fact -b o u n d

, req u iri n g an ex am i n at io n o f t h e nat u re

an d ex t en t o f an y b u s in es s

, p ers o n al

, s oci al or po l i t i cal as s o ci at i o n s

, an d

an ex erci s e o f ju d g m en t co n cern i n g ju st h o w cl o s e an d h o w ex t en s iv e

(an d h o w recen t ) t h es e as s o ci at io n s are o r h av e b een

.

Id . (ci t at i o ns an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Here, al t h o u g h t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s co m m en t s creat ed an ap p earan ce o f p art i al i t y

,

Du k es h a s f

a i led t o sh o w a “ p ro bab i l i t y o f act u al b i as ” t h at i s “ t o o hi g h t o b e

co n st i t u t io n al l y t ol erab l e.” P ya t t

, 2 9 8 Ga. at 7 5 1 ( 5 ) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). As t h e m ajo ri t y p o i n t s o u t

, t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s co m m en t s an d co ach i n g i n t h i s

7cas e ap p ear m ore li k el y t o s t em fro m h i s fru s t rat i on w i t h t h e p ro s ecu to r’ s

i n ex p eri en ce rat her t han an y part i al i t y i n fav o r o f t h e pro s ecu t io n o r ag ai ns t Du k es

.

Acco rd in g ly

, I ag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s u l t im at e co n cl u s i o n i n Di v is io n 3 th at Du k es

h as fai l ed t o s h o w b i as s u ffi ci en t to s u p p o rt a d u e p r o c es s v i o l at i o n wi t h res p ect to

t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s co m

m en t s co ach i n g t h e p ro s ecu t o r i n t h i s cas e.

8