Dunham v. State
315 Ga. App. 901
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dunham was convicted of aggravated battery after an altercation at a salvage yard with four men; he previously harassed them and claimed they were not welcome in the country.
- During the incident, Dunham assaulted a younger brother with a camera, wrestled with the group, and bit one man’s ear, tearing it off; the evidence included his size and prior aggression.
- The State introduced similar transaction evidence from 1995 via a bounty hunter to show intent and course of conduct; the jury heard testimony through interpreters.
- Dunham testified that he acted in self-defense after being attacked and explained fear and misperception during the struggle; the jury found him guilty of aggravated battery, not guilty of aggravated assault.
- The court instructed the jury that the similar transaction evidence was admissible for limited purposes (intent and course of conduct) and not for propensity or identity.
- Dunham appealed, challenging (i) the admission of similar transaction evidence, (ii) denial of a mistrial, (iii) imposition of three-strikes recidivist sentencing, and (iv) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar transaction evidence | Dunham: improper purpose and too old | State: proper purpose; sufficiently similar; not stale | Admissible for intent and course of conduct |
| Mistrial denial following bounty hunter testimony | Mistrial required due to bad-character implication | Curative instruction adequate; fleeting remark | No abuse of discretion; mistrial not required |
| Recidivist sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) | Constitutional/notice issues; plea validity not shown | State established prior felonies with counsel representation | Waived; defendant cannot challenge |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Counsel deficient for failing to object, limit testimony, cross-examine | No merit; objections and cross-exam appropriate; trial strategy | No ineffective assistance shown |
| Other trial-counsel decisions (specific cross-examination and evidentiary objections about similar transaction) | Counsel failed to limit or challenge all aspects of similar transaction | Testimony within scope; meritless objections | Not meritorious; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (1991) (admissibility of similar transaction evidence standard)
- Chua v. State, 289 Ga. 220 (2011) (similar transaction evidence for intent and course of conduct)
- Cooper v. State, 173 Ga. App. 254 (1985) (similar transactions' weight vs. credibility; admissibility)
- Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70 (2011) (age of prior acts bearing on admissibility)
- Mullins v. State, 269 Ga. 157 (1998) (older similar acts admissible to show course of conduct)
- Moore v. State, 288 Ga. 187 (2010) (older shooting incident admissible to show inclination)
- Robertson v. State, 306 Ga. App. 721 (2010) (pretrial ruling on admissibility of similar transaction for proper purpose)
- Hooks v. State, 253 Ga. 141 (1984) (cross-examination rights; consequences for impeachment)
- Childs v. State, 287 Ga. 488 (2010) (cross-examination and admissibility interact with testimony)
- Terry v. State, 284 Ga. 119 (2008) (analysis of trial strategy in impeachment)
- Beasley v. State, 254 Ga. App. 839 (2002) (presumption of regularity in prior pleas for recidivist sentencing)
- Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281 (1999) (burden shift after showing prior guilty plea with counsel)
- Beck v. State, 283 Ga. 352 (2008) (burden in recidivism after admissibility evidence)