Brewner v. State
302 Ga. 6
| Ga. | 2017Background
- In August 2014, armed intruders entered Adam Schrier’s home; Schrier was killed and two others wounded during an apparent robbery to recover methamphetamine or proceeds.
- Evidence at trial tied the invasion to a drug distribution network: five kilos of meth taken from a storage location, sold to others, and believed to have been hidden at Schrier’s home.
- Brewner was implicated as organizer: testimony placed him planning recovery of the drugs/money with Staples, introducing co-perpetrators, prior similar conduct in 2013, recorded phone calls with police, and post-crime flight.
- Brewner was convicted on 18 counts (including malice murder, home invasion, robbery, aggravated assault) after an eight-day jury trial and sentenced to life without parole plus 50 years.
- On appeal Brewner challenged: (1) denial of the right to be present at certain proceedings, (2) admission of OCGA § 24-4-404(b) “other acts” evidence and recordings, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) admission of prior inconsistent recorded statements.
Issues
| Issue | Brewner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be present at 404(b) ruling and juror dismissal | Brewner: court ruled on 404(b) motion and excused a juror outside his presence, violating his constitutional right to be present | State: (1) legal rulings like admission determinations are not "critical stages" requiring presence; (2) juror excusal was waived by counsel while Brewner was present and by his subsequent acquiescence | Court: No violation. Court rulings on motions are not a critical stage; juror excusal was waived when counsel approved the action in Brewner’s presence and Brewner never objected |
| Admissibility of 404(b) other-acts evidence (prior drug dealing and 2013 Staples invasion) | Brewner: prior bad acts were unduly prejudicial and trial court failed to make on-the-record 404(b) findings | State: evidence was admissible to prove intent, plan, knowledge, and provided narrative/context; probative value outweighed prejudice; no requirement for on-the-record findings under controlling federal precedent | Court: No abuse of discretion. Evidence met 404(b) test (relevance, probative value, sufficient proof). No plain error in lack of on-the-record findings |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request contemporaneous limiting instruction & failure to object to voice authentication | Brewner: counsel should have asked for immediate limiting instruction and objected to recordings as unauthenticated | State: trial court gave a comprehensive limiting instruction at close of evidence; recordings contained indicia of authenticity and counsel believed voice was Brewner’s | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice. Late but adequate limiting instruction cured any risk; authentication was supported so objection would have failed |
| Admission of Roberts’ recorded interview as prior inconsistent statement | Brewner: recordings improperly admitted as prior inconsistent statements | State: Roberts testified inconsistently at trial, was confronted with prior statements, and gave reasons (e.g., fatigue, drugs) — foundation for extrinsic evidence existed | Court: Admission proper. Foundation satisfied under OCGA §§ 24-6-613(b) and 24-8-801(d)(1)(A); recordings admissible and published |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Brewner: challenged convictions (claimed lack of presence/participation) | State: presented proof of Brewner’s role in planning, introductions, admissions, and other corroborating evidence | Court: Evidence sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (defendant’s right to be present at proceedings)
- Sammons v. State, 279 Ga. 386 (absence at critical stages presumed prejudicial)
- Huff v. State, 274 Ga. 110 (definition of a "critical stage" for right-to-be-present analysis)
- Fortson v. State, 272 Ga. 457 (examples of critical stages)
- Campbell v. State, 292 Ga. 766 (distinguishing legal bench conferences from critical stages)
- Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797 (juror selection and right to be present)
- Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (mechanics of waiving the right to be present)
- State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (plain error framework)
- Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95 (applying Eleventh Circuit three-part test for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (404(b) relevance when intent is at issue)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (weighing probative value vs. prejudice; narrative integrity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)