Devaughn v. State
296 Ga. 475
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Victim William Eric Clark was shot to death on December 13, 2005; appellant Jean Pierre DeVaughn was indicted in 2009 and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in a 2011 trial.
- Prosecution theory: DeVaughn met the victim under pretense of going to a liquor store, pulled a handgun, and shot him; accomplices Khorey Branch and Christopher Tumlin testified for the State (Tumlin had use immunity).
- Evidence included eyewitness testimony, phone records locating DeVaughn near the scene, communications between DeVaughn and the victim, and testimony that the victim’s wife had offered payment to kill him.
- Procedural posture: DeVaughn’s motion for new trial was denied; he appealed raising errors about juror strikes, late disclosure of witness Branch, suppression of phone-number/records (Miranda), and alleged undisclosed deal with Branch.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting each of DeVaughn’s appellate claims.
Issues
| Issue | DeVaughn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court struck two Black prospective jurors for cause (Batson-type claim) | Strikes were racially motivated and violated equal protection | Strikes were for cause based on jurors’ statements (bias, inability to be impartial) | Preserved challenge failed; strikes for cause were proper and not shown to be race-based |
| Late disclosure of witness Khorey Branch | State violated OCGA §17-16-8 by notifying defense of Branch only on first day of trial, prejudicing defense | State showed good cause: witness newly located; trial court granted overnight continuance and other accommodations | Court found no abuse of discretion; exception for good cause and additional time were adequate |
| Admission of cell-phone number and records (Miranda) | Statements (phone number) elicited without Miranda warnings or after request for counsel; records are fruit of unlawful interrogation | DeVaughn was not in custody when interviewed; he voluntarily came to station, was not restrained; he gave number before any request for counsel | Court upheld admission: no Miranda required (no custody) and number given before counsel requested; post-request statements were suppressed but not the phone evidence |
| Alleged undisclosed immunity/leniency deal with Branch (Giglio) | Branch must have an undisclosed deal because he wasn’t charged; failure to disclose deal violated Brady/Giglio | No deal existed; subsequent disposition alone does not prove a deal; State denied any agreement and trial court credited that denial | Court found no clear error in trial court’s finding; no Giglio violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strike equal-protection framework)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause rights require opportunity for cross-examination)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecution must disclose promises of leniency/immunity to witnesses)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree suppression principles)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (custody analysis: presence at police station alone does not make interview custodial)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (police subjective view of suspect status irrelevant to custody analysis)