Dillard v. State
323 Ga. App. 333
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Dillard was convicted of burglary and criminal attempt to commit burglary and sentenced to 20 years in confinement followed by 10 years on probation.
- Appellate challenge: sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance for not requesting a trespass charge, and exclusion of an expert on drunkness/blackouts.
- The sufficiency standard requires a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and courts do not reweigh evidence; view in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- First victim testified Dillard entered her living room, approached the TV, and a struggle ensued with her son; TV wires were disconnected.
- Second victim testified to Dillard at the back door and a removed garage window screen; Dillard’s conduct supported burglary and attempted burglary convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient for burglary and attempted burglary? | Dillard argues intoxication negates specific intent. | State asserts circumstantial evidence supports intent to commit a felony or theft. | Yes; evidence supports guilty verdicts beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a criminal trespass charge? | Trespass should be a lesser included offense. | Trespass not warranted under the facts. | No; no error in not giving trespass due to lack of unlawful purpose evidence. |
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding the expert on alcohol-induced blackout? | Testimony could illuminate blackout effects on behavior. | Testimony irrelevant to intent and admissibility proper. | No error; testimony not relevant to issue of intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benbow v. State, 288 Ga. 192 (Ga. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; deference to jury)
- Jackson v. State, 270 Ga. 494 (Ga. 1999) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency; must exclude other hypotheses)
- Moore v. State, 280 Ga. App. 894 (Ga. App. 2006) (lesser included offenses; charge appropriate when evidence shows only unlawful entry)
- Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281 (Ga. App. 2009) (trespass charge as lesser included offense may be required if unlawful purpose inferred)
- Darden v. State, 165 Ga. App. 739 (Ga. App. 1983) (where evidence shows only the charged offense or no offense, no lesser charge required)
- Anthony v. State, 317 Ga. App. 807 (Ga. App. 2012) (trial court not required to charge lesser offenses)