Carter v. State
331 Ga. App. 212
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- In Nov. 2003 a Fulton County jury convicted Chenard Carter of (inter alia) voluntary manslaughter (three counts merged), aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; total sentence 25 years.
- Indictment charged malice murder, three counts of felony murder (each predicated on an underlying aggravated assault), multiple aggravated assaults, and a firearms offense; prosecution theory: crossfire between defendants caused the victim’s death.
- Trial court instructed the jury on malice and felony murder and gave a voluntary-manslaughter (mitigation/provocation) charge as a possible reduction for those murder counts; the charge was not repeated after the felony-murder instruction but the court explained the verdict form allowed voluntary manslaughter as an option for each murder count.
- Jury returned mixed findings: not guilty of malice murder and voluntary manslaughter (as to that count); not guilty of each felony murder count but guilty of voluntary manslaughter as to each felony murder count; guilty on aggravated assault and firearms counts.
- Carter appealed, arguing the verdicts were repugnant (convicted and acquitted of the same crime — voluntary manslaughter) and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mixed not-guilty/guilty findings on voluntary manslaughter are legally repugnant / barred by double jeopardy | Carter: jury’s acquittal and conviction for voluntary manslaughter are mutually exclusive; conviction cannot stand | State: inconsistent- verdict rule abolished; verdicts here can be reconciled because voluntary manslaughter as a lesser of malice murder differs from voluntary manslaughter as a lesser of felony murder | Not repugnant — jury could logically find no malice (and no provocation by the victim) for malice murder but find mitigation as to felony-murder theory (provocation by co-defendant firing), so convictions stand |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the verdict and sentence | Carter: counsel should have objected to repugnant verdict and improper sentencing | State: any objection would be futile because the verdict is legally permissible | Not ineffective — failure to make a futile objection is not deficient performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Powell v. Alabama, 469 U.S. 57 (jury inconsistency does not require vacation of convictions; courts should not probe jury deliberations)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (inconsistent verdicts reflect jury lenity; consistency not required)
- Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560 (Georgia abolished the inconsistent-verdict rule adopting Powell)
- Jackson v. State, 276 Ga. 408 (recognizes the separate doctrine of repugnant or mutually exclusive verdicts)
- Flores v. State, 277 Ga. 780 (mutually exclusive guilty verdicts require reversal/remand)
- Shepherd v. State, 280 Ga. 245 (distinguishes inconsistent verdicts from repugnant ones in Georgia)
- Wallace v. State, 294 Ga. 257 (any murder type may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter)