Amaya v. State
308 Ga. App. 460
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Amaya was convicted after a jury trial of rape (Count 1), false imprisonment as a lesser included charge (Count 3), aggravated assault (Count 5), kidnapping (Count 6), and family violence battery (Count 7).
- The offenses arose from incidents with his girlfriend, R.F., in March 2009 at a trailer where they lived with others.
- March 1, 2009: Amaya grabbed R.F. by the neck, dragged her into the yard, beat her, and carried her to the trailer.
- March 5, 2009: Amaya allegedly forced intercourse with R.F. after she refused; later that day he assaulted her and she sought police assistance due to injuries.
- A sexual assault nurse testified about R.F.’s bruises and vaginal injuries; a video interview of Amaya showed admissions to fighting, dragging, beating, and intercourse.
- On appeal Amaya argued issues related to juror impartiality, asportation evidence, closing arguments, evidentiary force in rape, and the punishment instruction; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror for-cause removal | Juror 243, a rape victim and counselor, was biased in favor of victims. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; juror could be impartial. | No abuse; juror not shown fixed bias or partiality. |
| Sufficiency of asportation for kidnapping | Garza factors support asportation; movement aided kidnapping charge. | Movement minimal; not necessary to battery; not movant for asportation. | Denial of directed verdict affirmed; Garza test satisfied. |
| Closing argument on kidnapping | State’s closing comment correctly stated law and evidence supported movement analysis. | Objection to closing argument should have been sustained for misstatement of law. | No reversible error; closing argument aligned with court’s instructions. |
| Closing argument on force element of rape | Nurse testimony supported forcible intercourse based on injuries. | No proper authority cited; argument inappropriate. | Enumeration abandoned; no error preserved. |
| Punishment instruction | Instruction injects court’s opinion into deliberations. | Instruction accurately stated law; proper. | Judgment affirmed; instruction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garduno v. State, 299 Ga.App. 32, 682 S.E.2d 145 (2009) (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (trial court’s discretion in juror impartiality; no automatic strike without manifest abuse)
- Park v. State, 260 Ga.App. 879, 581 S.E.2d 393 (2003) (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (bias considerations during voir dire)
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696, 670 S.E.2d 73 (2008) (Ga. 2008) (test for asportation in kidnapping analysis)
- Flores v. State, 298 Ga.App. 574, 680 S.E.2d 609 (2009) (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (movement that increases danger can support asportation finding)
- Brashier v. State, 299 Ga.App. 107, 681 S.E.2d 750 (2009) (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (movement not necessary to offense may still affect danger assessment)
- Leverette v. State, 303 Ga.App. 849, 696 S.E.2d 62 (2010) (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (asportation Garza framework; applicability after statutory changes)
- Reedman v. State, 265 Ga.App. 162, 593 S.E.2d 46 (2003) (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (principles on proper closing argument and citation to authority)
- Roberts v. State, 276 Ga. 258, 577 S.E.2d 580 (2003) (Ga. 2003) (binding effect of correct jury instructions on law)