Bighams v. State
296 Ga. 267
Ga.2014Background
- On July 3, 2004, a truck driven by Crear approached a Buick; three shots were fired from the passenger side, killing driver Travis Tyson and wounding passenger Tony Reeves. Bighams and Crear were arrested and tried; Riley was acquitted by directed verdict at trial.
- The firearm was owned by Crear; witnesses and several participants gave conflicting testimony about who fired the shots (some said Bighams; Crear claimed he left the gun under the seat and did not ask anyone to use it).
- A Clinch County grand jury indicted Bighams, Crear, Riley, and Edmonds for felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession; charges against Edmonds were dismissed before trial.
- Bighams and Crear were convicted by a jury and sentenced (life for felony murder among other terms); both filed motions for new trial and later appeals raising three principal issues.
- At the new-trial hearing it was stipulated that a Fargo city council member (an elective official) had served on the grand jury that returned the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | State: eyewitness and participant testimony and party-to-a-crime instruction support convictions | Bighams/Crear: eyewitness accounts conflicted and were insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury, evidence was sufficient and credibility was for the jury to decide (Jackson standard) |
| Validity of indictment due to elective official on grand jury | Bighams/Crear: indictment void because an elected official served on the grand jury, rendering juror incompetent under OCGA § 15-12-60(b) | State: challenge was untimely; defendants waived challenge by not moving within statutory deadline | Held: Challenge waived — defendants failed to raise the composition challenge within the ten-day pretrial motion period (OCGA § 17-7-110) |
| Ineffective assistance for not timely moving to quash indictment | Bighams/Crear: trial counsel ineffective for failing to file timely motion to quash based on grand jury composition | State: even if deficient, no prejudice because state could re-indict and no statute-of-limitations bar or realistic defense would have prevented re-indictment | Held: Claim fails — defendants did not show Strickland prejudice; re-indictment likely and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Applicability of pretrial-motion deadline for indictment challenges | Defendants: composition challenge could be raised later/new-trial because indictment invalid | State: § 17-7-110 requires pretrial motions within ten days of arraignment, applies to motions to quash based on grand jury composition | Held: § 17-7-110 applies; defendants’ late challenge (years after arraignment) was untimely and therefore waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (reliability and jury’s role in resolving witness credibility)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763 (indictment void if an incompetent grand juror sits; timeliness of motion to quash)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Chapman v. State, 318 Ga. App. 514 (failure to file challenge to indictment generally not prejudicial where re-indictment likely)
- Washington v. State, 298 Ga. App. 105 (re-indictment availability undermines ineffective-assistance claim for failure to file pretrial demurrer)