Cuzzort v. State
307 Ga. App. 52
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- Following a jury trial, Cuzzort was convicted of felony family violence battery, simple battery, and simple assault.
- The offenses involved injuries to his wife during a November 11, 2006 domestic dispute at their residence.
- Evidence included the wife's testimony of slapping, choking, being shoved, and fear for safety, plus prior domestic dispute incidents in 2004 and 2005 with accompanying injuries.
- The State charged Cuzzort under OCGA § 16-5-23.1 and § 16-5-23(a)(2); the jury acquitted one obstruction count.
- Cuzzort argued the evidence showed self-defense and challenged the sufficiency of the simple assault element (substantial step/violence).
- The trial court denied a motion for new trial; on appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and rejected ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony family violence and simple battery | Cuzzort contends injuries resulted from self-defense. | Evidence does not show intent to cause harm; self-defense negates intent. | Evidence supported intent; convictions affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault | No demonstrated 'requisite demonstration of violence' or substantial step. | Victim feared immediate violent injury based on conduct and threats. | Evidence showed reasonable apprehension of harm; simple assault upheld. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to strike juror for cause | Counsel should have struck biased juror for cause. | Juror was not fixedly biased; per se strike would not have succeeded. | No ineffective assistance; juror not compelled to strike for cause. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to demur to the simple assault indictment | Counsel should have demurred to improper indictment form. | Even if imperfect, demurrer would not have prevented reindictment; prejudice not shown. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice from failure to demur. |
| Ineffective assistance for objections to drug-use testimony and petition under Family Violence Act | Counsel should have objected to prejudicial testimony and records. | Strategic choices; objections would have drawn attention or been unwarranted. | Counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. State, 300 Ga.App. 391, 685 S.E.2d 355 (2009) (intent may be inferred from circumstances and relation context)
- Simmons v. State, 285 Ga. App. 129, 645 S.E.2d 622 (2007) (prior difficulties admissible to show abusive bent of mind)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga.App. 633, 667 S.E.2d 899 (2008) (juror bias and voir dire standards for cause strikes)
- Somchith v. State, 272 Ga. 261, 527 S.E.2d 546 (2000) (juror's willingness to be objective; bias not fixed)
- Hurt v. State, 158 Ga.App. 722, 282 S.E.2d 192 (1981) (apprehension of harm may be inferred from conduct)
- Wroge v. State, 278 Ga.App. 753, 629 S.E.2d 596 (2006) (definition of reasonable apprehension for simple assault)
- Paul v. State, 231 Ga. App. 528, 499 S.E.2d 914 (1998) (focus on victim's apprehension in simple assault)
- Cole v. State, 279 Ga.App. 219, 630 S.E.2d 817 (2006) (merits of trial strategy in ineffective-assistance review)
- Wallace v. State, 253 Ga.App. 220, 558 S.E.2d 773 (2002) (demurrer and indictment form considerations)
- Lajara v. State, 263 Ga. 438, 435 S.E.2d 600 (1993) (standard for deference to trial court findings on factual issues)
- Nesbitt v. State, 296 Ga.App. 139, 673 S.E.2d 652 (2009) (trial strategy and conduct reviewed under Strickland framework)
- Pruitt v. State, 279 Ga. 140, 611 S.E.2d 47 (2005) (reasonable probabilities in ineffective-assistance analysis)