Clement v. State
309 Ga. App. 376
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Clement was convicted by a jury of terroristic threats, criminal damage to property in the second degree, criminal trespass, simple battery, and family violence battery; he appeals the denial of his new-trial motion and challenges a directed-verdict ruling on terroristic threats and the merging of simple battery into family violence battery.
- The State presented evidence that Clement chased the victim with what appeared to be a knife, threatened to take her and the child, and engaged in a violent struggle resulting in facial injuries and car-window damage.
- The victim and Clement had a long, stormy relationship; they recently became parents, and the couple had been living apart with the infant at the cousin’s home.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict on terroristic threats against the cousin but denied it as to the victim; the jury convicted Clement of terroristic threats against the victim and other offenses.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence of a threat to commit a crime of violence and to terrorize the victim, and that simple battery should have merged into family violence battery, requiring vacatur of the simple-battery conviction and remand for resentencing.
- The judgment was affirmed as to terroristic threats against the victim but vacated in part for improper merger; remanded for resentencing on the merged count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of terroristic threats against the victim | Clement argues no threat or terrorizing intent shown. | State contends threats were evident from conduct and surrounding circumstances. | Sufficient evidence to convict on terroristic threats against the victim. |
| Merger of simple battery into family violence battery | Simple battery should merge with family-violence battery. | Court should merge under continuous-criminal-activity standard. | Yes; simple battery merged into family violence battery; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanthrip v. State, 235 Ga. 10 (Ga. 1975) (defining threat and its elements under OCGA 16-11-37(a))
- Armour v. State, 265 Ga.App. 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (threats may be proven by circumstances surrounding conduct)
- Martin v. State, 303 Ga. App. 117 (Ga. App. 2010) (two elements required: threat and purpose to terrorize)
- Hobby v. State, 298 Ga.App. 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (circumstantial evidence can prove purposes of threats)
- Williams v. State, 277 Ga.App. 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (threats may be shown by surrounding circumstances)