Court Opinion

ID: 9850761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:43.568523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.989287
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice.
A jury found Ronald Lupez Freeman guilty of felony murder while in the commission of an armed robbery. Although the State had sought the death penalty, the jury recommended life imprisonment. After the trial court entered a judgment of conviction and a life sentence, Freeman filed a motion for new trial. The trial court denied *186the motion for new trial and Freeman appeals.1
1. Construing the evidence most strongly against Freeman shows the following: The victim was a Cobb County convenience store owner who was shot in the head and died shortly after being transported to the hospital. Two additional bullets were found in the walls of the store and several thousand dollars in cash and money orders were missing. Approximately one month after the murder, a friend of Freeman’s reported to the police that Freeman had admitted shooting the victim. When the police arrested Freeman, he was armed with a revolver. A State firearms expert testified that one of the bullets found in the wall of the store was fired from Freeman’s revolver and that it was “probable” that the bullet recovered from the victim’s body also was fired from that weapon. Freeman was involved in other recent armed robberies of Cobb County convenience and fast food stores wherein store personnel were killed. See Freeman v. State, 268 Ga. 181 (486 SE2d 161) (1997); Freeman v. State, 266 Ga. 343 (467 SE2d 515) (1996). Freeman’s accomplice in one of those recent similar crimes testified that Freeman had admitted killing the victim and stealing the cash and money orders. This evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Freeman’s guilt of felony murder while in the commission of an armed robbery. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Freeman enumerates as error the denial of his motion for a change of venue based upon pre-trial publicity. Such a change of venue is appropriate when “a defendant can make a substantive showing of the likelihood of prejudice by reason of extensive publicity.” Jones v. State, 261 Ga. 665, 666 (2) (b) (409 SE2d 642) (1991). Although the extent and timing of the pre-trial publicity are factors in determining whether there has been such a showing, the decisive factor is the effect of the publicity on the ability of prospective jurors to be objective. See Thornton v. State, 264 Ga. 563, 574 (17) (449 SE2d 98) (1994).
Ninety-six prospective jurors underwent extensive voir dire. Although forty-one were excused for cause, only nine of them were excused because of the opinions they had formed as the result of exposure to pre-trial publicity. Thus, the percentage of prospective jurors excused for cause due to pre-trial publicity is half that found *187problematical in Jones, supra. Moreover, every qualified prospective juror who had been exposed to pre-trial publicity stated that he or she could set that exposure aside and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the voir dire does not reflect a “substantive showing” of the likelihood of prejudice by reason of extensive pre-trial publicity. Compare Jones v. State, supra.
3. Freeman urges that the trial court erred when it ordered him to provide the State with the names, addresses and written reports of all of his experts. Although the trial court’s ruling in this regard was correct at the time it was made, we subsequently held in Rower v. State, 264 Ga. 323, 324 (5) (443 SE2d 839) (1994) that the State is entitled to only the written reports of experts which the defense intends to introduce at trial. Accordingly, the trial court’s order was erroneously overbroad. See Childress v. State, 266 Ga. 425, 432 (3) (467 SE2d 865) (1996); Johnson v. State, 265 Ga. 833 (463 SE2d 123) (1995).
The error, however, must be harmful to be reversible. Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292, 294 (4) (455 SE2d 61) (1995). Freeman urges that, because the trial court erroneously ordered him to furnish an unfavorable report of his ballistics expert to the State, he was harmed by being required to call that expert as a witness at trial. The record shows, however, that the State relied entirely upon the testimony of its own ballistics expert to connect Freeman’s revolver with the bullets. Although Freeman was certainly not compelled to do so, he thereafter elected to call his ballistics expert in an apparent attempt to counteract the testimony of the State’s expert and, if Freeman failed in this attempt, it was not the result of the trial court’s erroneous discovery order. Compare Childress v. State, supra. Since Freeman has shown no harm, the error does not warrant a new trial.
4. Freeman urges that the trial court’s charge was erroneous because it failed to specify the appropriate standard of proof applicable to the similar crimes evidence. Freeman requested that the trial court give a charge that the State had the burden of proving his similar offenses “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It was not error to refuse to give this request, since the similar offenses were not an element of any offense for which Freeman was being tried. Wallace v. State, 246 Ga. 738, 742 (5) (273 SE2d 143) (1980).
There is a wide split of authority as to the proper standard of proof for similar crimes, with jurisdictions traditionally opting between three different standards. Although a few jurisdictions do appear to apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, the prevailing view is that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard applies, but support for that standard is eroding and a significant minority of jurisdictions now applies the “preponderance of the evi*188dence” standard. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, § 2:08. In Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749, 755 (4) (312 SE2d 40) (1983), we held that the State is required to show “sufficient evidence tying [the defendant] to the perpetration of the independent crimes....” Although we did not explicitly define “sufficient evidence,” it is clear from a review of the strongly worded dissent of Justice Smith that “sufficient evidence” is certainly a lesser standard than “clear and convincing evidence.” Williams v. State, supra at 816 (1) (b) (2) (dissent of Justice Smith). According to Justice Smith, the applicable standard was “clear and convincing” and the majority incorrectly found evidence of other crimes to be admissible under a theory which was “at odds with the rule of evidence which requires clear proof of the accused’s commission of each and every extrinsic offense.” Williams v. State, supra at 817 (1) (b) (2) (dissent of Justice Smith).
If the applicable standard of proof is less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” under Wallace, supra, and less than “clear and convincing evidence” under Williams, supra, then the applicable standard of proof in Georgia would appear to be a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is consistent with persuasive authority from the Supreme Court of the United States. Huddleston v. United States, 485 U. S. 681, 687, fn. 5 (108 SC 1496, 99 LE2d 771) (1988) clearly holds that the admissibility of similar crimes is dependent upon a preliminary showing by a “preponderance of the evidence,” rather than a showing by “clear and convincing evidence.” The authority from other jurisdictions supporting the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is certainly no more persuasive than a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the proponents of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard have criticized Huddleston, support for the “clear and convincing evidence” standard nevertheless has weakened as courts in various jurisdictions have shifted to Huddleston’s “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, § 2:08. Moreover, despite the criticism leveled at Huddleston, the Supreme Court has continued to apply the preponderance standard. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 74 (II) (112 SC 475, 116 LE2d 385) (1991). “[W]e find ‘nothing to suggest that admissibility rulings have been unreliable or otherwise wanting in quality because not based on some higher standard.’” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U. S. 171, 175-176 (107 SC 2775, 97 LE2d 144) (1987) (cited with approval in Huddleston v. United States, supra at 687, fn. 5). Accordingly, we adhere to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for the admission of similar crimes evidence which was implicitly adopted in Williams, supra. See also Smith v. State, 267 Ga. 363, 364 (2) (478 SE2d 379) (1996); Freeman v. State, 266 Ga., supra.
*189In a criminal case, the trial court is not required to give an unrequested charge as to any collateral matter and the manner in which the jury should consider the testimony of witnesses is a collateral matter. Burger v. State, 245 Ga. 458, 459 (1) (265 SE2d 796) (1980). It has long been the rule in this state that a request to charge must be correct, even perfect, and that it must also be legal, apt, precisely adjusted to some principle involved in the case and be authorized by the evidence. Kessel v. State, 236 Ga. 373, 374 (2) (223 SE2d 811) (1976). See also McCoy v. State, 262 Ga. 699, 701 (3) (a) (425 SE2d 646) (1993); Hill v. State, 211 Ga. 683, 685 (4) (88 SE2d 145) (1955); Key v. State, 211 Ga. 384, 385 (5) (86 SE2d 212) (1955); Lewis v. State, 196 Ga. 755, 760 (3) (27 SE2d 659) (1943). Because Freeman did not request a charge that his similar crimes be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence,” there was no error in the trial court’s failure to give such an unrequested charge.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J., and Sears, J., who concur specially .

 The murder occurred on January 20, 1992 and the grand jury indicted Freeman on December 4,1992. The jury returned the guilty verdict on June 11, 1993 and the trial court entered its judgment of conviction and life sentence on June 12, 1993. Freeman filed his motion for new trial on July 1, 1993 and the trial court denied that motion on August 16, 1996. Freeman filed his notice of appeal on August 26, 1996 and the case was docketed in this Court on December 6, 1996. The case was submitted for decision on briefs.