Opinion ID: 2394054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Metz and Its Progeny

Text: Metz was this Court's first case applying § 17-8-58. In addressing the jury charge error presented on appeal, the Court first explained accurately that, [u]nder subsection (a) of that Code section, a criminal defendant is required to `inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate.' 284 Ga. at 619-620, 669 S.E.2d 121 (quoting OCGA § 17-8-58(a)). The Court then stated, again accurately, that [s]ubsection (b) precludes appellate review where there is a `(f)ailure to object in accordance with subsection (a).' Id. (quoting OCGA § 17-8-58(b)). However, the Court then concluded thatin the passage quoted by the majority[a]s Metz did not specifically object to the charge on accomplice testimony at the conclusion of the jury charge, he has waived his right to urge error on appeal, without addressing the merits of that alleged error in any way. Id. In reaching that conclusion, and despite quoting the first part of the statute, the Metz Court did not quote or address the remainder of subsection (b)the portion that says . . . unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties. Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court's attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section. The Court did not explain this omission, nor does the majority today, and I am unaware of any reason to disregard that portion of the Georgia Code. In subsequent caseswhich I joined without spotting this problemjury charge issues were similarly deemed waived, citing Metz, without discussion of plain error or the merits of the issue. See Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 889, 891, 692 S.E.2d 379 (2010); Hatcher v. State, 286 Ga. 491, 494, 690 S.E.2d 174 (2010). See also Madrigal, 287 Ga. at 122-123, 694 S.E.2d 652 (holding that the jury charge issue was waived, citing Metz, and also precluded from appellate review as invited error). [4] In even more cases, the Court of Appeals has relied on Metz to hold that enumerated jury charge issues were waived, without mention of plain error review. See, e.g., Ware v. State, 305 Ga.App. 229, 233, 699 S.E.2d 435 (2010); Watkins v. State, 304 Ga.App. 78, 82, 695 S.E.2d 394 (2010); Lavigne v. State, 299 Ga.App. 712, 714, 683 S.E.2d 656 (2009).