Cheddersingh v. State
290 Ga. 680
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Cheddersingh was convicted in Fulton County of malice murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the court reversed the judgments.
- Walker, the decedent, and his cousin Mack were with a friend; two intruders forced entry, one with an AK-47, Cheddersingh produced a .32, Walker was shot.
- Mack was forced upstairs, money was taken after being announced; Mack was shot and fled; Mack later called 911.
- The verdict forms for all charges instructed jurors to find guilty or not guilty with a preprinted phrase stating beyond a reasonable doubt, creating a potential burden-shifting framework.
- The trial court’s verbal briefing stated the verdict form said “unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt” for guilt or not guilty, which could mislead on presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
- The Georgia Supreme Court held the verdict form error was plain error under OCGA § 17-8-58(b); Cheddersingh was entitled to a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the verdict form error plain error? | Cheddersingh: form misstated burden of proof. | Cheddersingh: error not objected to; waiver/forfeiture analysis. | Yes; plain error established. |
| Did the failure to properly object constitute an affirmative waiver? | No intentional relinquishment; forfeiture. | Waiver under Kelly required intentional relinquishment. | Not affirmative waiver; plain error review applicable. |
| Did the form misstate presumption of innocence and burden of proof? | Error undermined presumption and burden. | Instructions otherwise corrected by oral charge. | Yes, it violated fundamental standards. |
| Should Cheddersingh receive a new trial? | Plain error requiring remedy. | Remand not required; retrial not warranted. | Cheddersingh must be granted a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rucker v. State, 270 Ga. 431 (1999) (preprinted verdict forms treated as jury instructions; error executable on appeal under plain-error analysis)
- Brown v. State, 283 Ga. 327 (2008) (verdict forms considered part of jury instructions; error review)
- Tillman v. Massey, 281 Ga. 291 (2006) (presumption of innocence; burden of proof; plain-error context)
- Bruce v. Smith, 274 Ga. 432 (2001) (presumption of innocence and burden clarified)
- Eckman v. State, 274 Ga. 63 (2001) (burden of proof and standard in trial instructions)
- Stansell v. State, 270 Ga. 147 (1998) (review of jury instructions and burden of proof issues)
- 'Howard v. State', 288 Ga. 741 (2011) (written instructions may enlighten or confuse the jury; presumption of innocence emphasized)
- Arthur v. Walker, 285 Ga. 578 (2009) (example where correct written instructions aided deliberations)
- Laster v. State, 276 Ga. 645 (2003) (instructional error regarding verdict completion consequences)
- State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (plain-error standard for constitutional-type trial errors; waiver/forfeiture discussed)