Brown v. State
309 Ga. App. 511
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Larry Brown was convicted by a Cobb County jury of robbery by sudden snatching under OCGA § 16-8-40(a)(3) and sentenced to 20 years.
- The incident occurred at a Walmart in Cobb County on February 20, 2008, involving the taking of Ceminsky's wallet from his shopping cart while nearby.
- Ceminsky testified he saw Brown take the wallet, yelled for him to drop it, and Brown was chased to his car before being apprehended.
- Brown challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and raised multiple trial errors, including instructions and juror conduct.
- The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and upheld the jury’s findings after addressing each issue.
- Brown also asserted ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a vodka bottle found in Brown’s car, which the court deemed harmless given overwhelming evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery by sudden snatching | Brown lacked force and immediate presence required. | Evidence only shows theft by taking, not robbery by snatching. | Evidence supported robbery by sudden snatching beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Trial court failure to instruct lesser included offense | The jury should have been charged with theft by taking as lesser offense. | No evidence supports theft by taking as lesser included offense. | No error; charge on theft by taking not warranted. |
| Definition of forcible felony instruction | Court should give forcible felony definition as requested. | Pattern robbery instruction sufficed to cover the principle. | No reversible error; pattern instruction adequately stated law. |
| Mistrial due to juror misconduct | Misconduct tainted the jury; mistrial warranted. | Court properly addressed issue and no prejudice shown. | No abuse of discretion; no reasonable probability the misconduct affected verdict. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel erred by not objecting to vodka-bottle evidence as relevant. | Any deficiency was harmless given overwhelming evidence. | No reversible error; ineffective assistance claim failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendrick v. State, 279 Ga.App. 263, 630 S.E.2d 863 (2006) (force implicit in sudden snatching; presence nearby satisfies element)
- Moore v. State, 265 Ga.App. 511, 594 S.E.2d 734 (2004) (victim aware of crime during committing even if not seeing initial act)
- Sweet v. State, 304 Ga.App. 474, 697 S.E.2d 246 (2010) (immediate presence when victim observed; proximity matters)
- Bettis v. State, 285 Ga.App. 643, 647 S.E.2d 340 (2007) (robbery by sudden snatching differs from theft by taking; two elements required)
- Moore v. State, 210 Ga.App. 582, 436 S.E.2d 585 (1993) (relevance of repeated cites on presence and awareness)
- Lawrence v. State, 266 Ga. 417, 467 S.E.2d 574 (1996) (prejudice standard for juror misconduct; discretion of trial court)