Anderson v. State
311 Ga. App. 732
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Anderson and Espinosa were convicted of armed robbery after a store robbery at 1:50 a.m. and subsequent pursuit; both gave statements to police linking themselves to the crime.
- The trial court admitted their statements but redacted any references to the other co-defendant under Bruton.
- A convenience-store clerk identified Anderson as the gunman; surveillance video corroborated the robbery.
- Espinosa testified he drove the vehicle and discussed planning the crime with others; Anderson’s version claimed two men carjacked him.
- The jury found both defendants guilty; Anderson moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On appeal, the Court upheld the convictions and denied the motion for new trial, addressing Bruton issues and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruton violation and mistrial clearly warranted? | Anderson contends Bruton violation occurred via opening statement and officer testimony. | State argues no Bruton violation as statements did not incriminate; no mistrial required. | No reversible error; the brunt of the evidence was overwhelming. |
| Ineffective assistance—severance decision | Anderson alleges failure to sever was deficient performance. | State argues strategy and Bruton considerations supported joint trial. | No error; tactical choice not deficient. |
| Clerk’s in-court identification taint | Clerk’s pretrial photo shows taint; ineffective assistance for failing to object. | Identification had independent basis; pretrial taint insufficient. | No ineffective assistance; independent identification evidence supported verdict. |
| Hearsay and bolstering concerns about show-up and video testimony | Counsel should have objected to hearsay and bolstering. | Objections would be futile or cumulative; trial court corrected bolstering. | No reversible error; cumulative or non-prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (claims of non-testifying co-defendant statements implicating defendant violate confrontation clause)
- Davis v. State, 272 Ga. 327 (Ga. 2000) (redacted co-defendant statements may still violate Bruton)
- Johnson v. State, 275 Ga. 650 (Ga. 2002) (limiting instructions may not cure Bruton violations)
- Willis v. State, 309 Ga.App. 414 (Ga. App. 2011) (harmless error analysis for Bruton violations when overwhelming evidence exists)
- Collum v. State, 281 Ga. 719 (Ga. 2007) (harmless error for Bruton when evidence is overwhelming)