Battle v. State
301 Ga. 694
| Ga. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 7, 2012, six men were approached and fired upon on Erin Avenue; Kenneth Roberts died of multiple gunshot wounds; five others were wounded or assaulted. Marcus Battle and Jacobey Carter were tried (with Robert Harris) for murder, multiple aggravated assaults, aggravated battery, and firearm offenses. Carter was acquitted of malice murder but convicted of felony murder and related counts; Battle was convicted of malice murder and related counts.
- Evidence: eyewitness identifications (including Jumper and Howard), defendant Battle seen with a gun earlier, Battle’s phone records placed his phone near the scene minutes before the shooting, Jumper’s car (driven that day) contained blood and was used to transport participants, and statements by witnesses described planning to rob a man wearing visible jewelry. Battle later admitted shooting a victim in the back and said he thought he had killed him.
- Jumper (the driver) and Howard provided testimony tying Battle and Carter to the trip to Erin Avenue and to actions before/after the shooting; Howard received some federal sentence reduction after cooperating (Battle alleged a deal), which was not proven in the record. Carter admitted he gave directions and sat in the car but denied participating in the shooting.
- Procedural history: joint indictment March 2013; joint jury trial Sept. 22–29, 2014; verdicts and sentences rendered; post-trial motions denied; appeals to Georgia Supreme Court.
- Key contested legal issues on appeal: (1) Battle’s Brady claim about undisclosed cooperation between state/federal authorities regarding witness Howard; (2) whether the district attorney should have been disqualified for an alleged conflict (victim was son of a DA employee); (3) Battle’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting under Bruton to Carter’s statements; and (4) Carter’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to his convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady disclosure regarding Howard’s alleged deal | Battle: State failed to disclose a deal/leniency given to Howard that would impeach his credibility | State: No proof of a Brady violation; Battle waived claim by not raising it below; no evidence State knew of any deal | Court: Waived; even on merits Battle offered only speculation and trial testimony showed Howard denied a deal—Brady claim fails |
| Disqualification of DA’s office for conflict | Battle: Victim was son of a DA employee, creating an appearance of personal interest and conflict | State: No personal relationship or special interest by lead prosecutor or DA affecting prosecution; no evidence of impropriety | Court: No disqualification; no evidence of personal interest or improper conduct by prosecutors |
| Ineffective assistance re: Bruton and admitted co-defendant statements | Battle: Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to detective’s testimony repeating Carter’s statements (which implicated Battle) under Bruton | State: Statements were not more inculpatory than other properly admitted evidence; strength of evidence makes any Bruton error non-prejudicial | Court: Even assuming Bruton error, no reasonable probability of different outcome given overwhelming similar evidence; Strickland claim fails |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Carter’s convictions | Carter: No proof he planned or participated in the shooting | State: Carter aided/abetted by directing driver, positioning vehicle, providing transport, staying to flee, and cleaning the car | Court: Evidence viewed in favor of verdicts was sufficient for jury to find Carter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (joint-trial confrontation rule for non-testifying co-defendant statements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Burgess v. State, 278 Ga. 314 (Bruton error may be harmless given strong evidence)
- Ardis v. State, 290 Ga. 58 (application of Bruton in Georgia joint trials)