Dugger v. State
297 Ga. 120
| Ga. | 2015Background
- On April 1, 2012 Leonard Cox was shot on his back porch after an encounter with Maurice Dugger; Cox died from a gunshot wound.
- Witness Maya Wilson observed a man demand Cox "give it up," saw a gun silhouette, watched Cox empty his pockets, and later identified Dugger in a photo lineup and at trial.
- Dugger initially denied presence, then gave multiple versions: accidental discharge in a struggle, then that he acted in self‑defense after being attacked and fearing death.
- Dugger was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (based on aggravated assault), armed robbery, and a firearm charge (later severed and nol prossed); jury acquitted malice murder but convicted felony murder and armed robbery.
- Dugger appealed raising sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy/inconsistent verdicts, jury instructions (separate verdicts, aggravated‑assault wording, lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, attempted robbery), and completeness of justification/self‑defense instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Dugger's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Wilson drank and lighting was poor; Dugger's self‑defense testimony was uncontradicted by physical evidence | Jury weighed credibility; evidence (identification, statements, witness account) supports convictions | Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Double jeopardy for felony murder after acquittal of malice murder | Acquittal of malice murder precludes conviction of felony murder | Single prosecution and single punishment; multiple charges for same conduct permissible under OCGA §16‑1‑7 | Affirmed — no double jeopardy violation |
| Inconsistent verdicts (guilty felony murder, not guilty malice murder) | Inconsistency should bar felony murder conviction | Inconsistent‑verdict rule abolished; verdicts not necessarily inconsistent because felony murder can be found without malice | Affirmed — no double jeopardy or reversible error |
| Jury instructions: lesser included voluntary manslaughter | Requested instruction because Dugger claimed he acted in heat of passion/fear | Evidence showed a claim of self‑defense, not irresistible passion; no evidence of required provocation | Affirmed — no voluntary manslaughter charge required |
| Jury instructions: separate verdicts & indictment form | Count alleged malice and felony murder only as felony murder | Indictment contained alternative allegations (malice and felony murder) so separate verdicts permissible | Affirmed — instruction proper |
| Aggravated assault instruction wording | Instruction too broad versus indictment alleging shooting with a handgun | Court gave indictment to jury and instructed State must prove each material allegation | Affirmed — any potential error cured by instructions and indictment copy |
| Attempted robbery instruction | State failed to prove completed taking so attempted robbery instruction required | Evidence showed completed armed robbery (victim surrendered possessions on porch); no separate attempt occurred | Affirmed — no attempted robbery instruction needed |
| Justification/self‑defense instructions completeness | Requested additional language on threats/menaces, §16‑3‑20(6), and explicit duty to acquit if justified | Court gave full pattern justification charge covering self‑defense and State’s burden; additional language unnecessary or potentially misleading | Affirmed — instructions adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. State, 295 Ga. 688 (jury credibility and sufficiency standard)
- Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (credibility for jury to decide)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard for convictions)
- Williams v. State, 288 Ga. 7 (double jeopardy principles)
- Manzano v. State, 290 Ga. 892 (acquittal on malice murder does not bar felony murder retrial)
- Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560 (abolition of inconsistent‑verdict rule)
- Leutner v. State, 253 Ga. 77 (indictment may allege alternative theories, including malice and felony murder)
- Williams v. Kelley, 291 Ga. 285 (cure of instructional error by providing indictment and element instruction)
- Coleman v. State, 264 Ga. 253 (no requirement to expressly tell jury it must acquit if defendant justified)
- Lavender v. State, 234 Ga. 608 (warning that an explicit acquit directive may mislead jury)
- Randolph v. State, 246 Ga. App. 141 (single transaction rule for robbery convictions)