Cade v. State
289 Ga. 805
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Appellant Shannon Cade was convicted after a jury trial of malice and felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing the death of another; the felony murder verdict was vacated and the aggravated assault merged into malice murder, resulting in life imprisonment plus a consecutive ten-year term for concealing death.
- The 17-year-old victim Brittney Wells dated Cade; on January 14, 2009, she was at Cade's mother's apartment where Ha Vuong, age 14, was also present.
- Cade admitted choking the victim; with Ha's help, he removed her clothes, wiped fingerprints with Pine-Sol, placed a plastic bag over her head, wrapped her in a blanket, and disposed of her in the apartment complex dumpster in DeKalb County.
- Later, Cade and Ha told Cade's cousin Thaddeus Cade, who notified police after finding the body in the dumpster; Cade claimed the victim threatened him with a knife, though no knife was found and Ha contradicted the knife threat.
- The State presented sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charged offenses; venue was DeKalb County for both the murder and concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Cade contends evidence does not prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. | State asserts sufficient forensic and eyewitness evidence supports murder convictions. | Evidence sufficient to sustain the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Venue for the crimes | No witness placed the crime in Georgia; argues lack of venue proof. | Recording DeKalb location and proximity to the dumpster establish DeKalb venue; no Georgia-only assertion needed. | Venue proper in DeKalb County for murder and concealing death. |
| Strike-for-cause of two jurors | Trial court should have struck jurors for cause due to biases. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; jurors could be impartial. | No abuse of discretion; jurors would remain impartial. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire | Counsel failed to adequately examine and move to strike jurors Saxon and Kriseman. | Counsel’s strategy was reasonable; failure to strike was not deficient performance or prejudicial. | No ineffective assistance; decisions were within trial strategy and not prejudicial. |
| Medical examiner testimony and jury influence | Admitted medical evidence improperly bolstered other witnesses' testimony and invaded jury's province. | Medical testimony appropriately explained technical aspects and did not address credibility of witnesses. | Medical examiner testimony properly admitted and not unduly bolstering; admissible explanation of medical facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- White v. State, 287 Ga. 713 (2010) (evidence sufficiency in Georgia crimes)
- Gresham v. State, 289 Ga. 103 (2011) (venue premises and jurisdiction in Georgia)
- Walker v. State, 30 Ga.App. 275 (1923) (early venue and jurisdiction principles)
- Hyde v. State, 275 Ga. 693 (2002) (juror impartiality and demeanor in voir dire)
- Chandler v. State, 281 Ga. 712 (2007) (impartiality and juror reliability in voir dire)
- Raheem v. State, 275 Ga. 87 (2002) (juror bias and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (2002) (voir dire strategy and prejudice standards)
- Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard on appeal)
- Mangrum v. State, 285 Ga. 676 (2009) (ultimate issue and expert testimony limits)