Ellicott v. State
320 Ga. App. 729
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ellicott was convicted by a jury of multiple counts including aggravated battery, aggravated assault, rape, aggravated sodomy, and false imprisonment arising from years of domestic abuse.
- The abuse included slapping, punching, forcing intercourse, strangling, and injuries culminating in hospital treatment and permanent injuries to the victim.
- The victim and Ellicott were married and lived in Fayette County; the abuse escalated in January 2009 with a sequence of violent acts in their home and basement theater.
- Ellicott was charged with seven aggravated batteries, six aggravated assaults, rape, and aggravated sodomy, and was convicted on all but one aggravated battery and one aggravated assault charge.
- Ellicott moved for a new trial, raising issues about juror bias, admissibility of reputation evidence, Brady material, prosecutorial- or judge-induced coercion during deliberations, trial bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel for not impeaching the victim.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the court of appeals affirmed the convictions, addressing each issue raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias for cause | Ellicott contends the juror was biased and should have been excused for cause. | State argues juror could be fair and impartial; denial of cause was within discretion. | No abuse of discretion; juror could be fair and impartial. |
| Admissibility of reputation for nonviolence | Ellicott argues reputation evidence for nonviolence was relevant to defense. | State objects as improper; evidence would be specific acts or not admissible. | Trial court did not err; reputation evidence admissible if tied to general reputation; testimony supported defense theory. |
| Brady material and in camera record | Ellicott seeks post-trial in camera review and full record of therapist records for Brady material. | Trial court conducted in camera review; failure to produce full record not error absent suppression or prejudice. | No reversible error; no showing of suppressed material or prejudice; record adequate. |
| Sentencing remarks and potential bias | Comments during sentencing show trial judge’s bias against Ellicott. | Judicial remarks did not prejudice and sentences were within statutory limits. | No reversible bias; sentencing remarks did not prejudice defendant. |
| Ineffective assistance for not impeaching victim | Trial counsel should have impeached the victim with prior sworn deposition testimony. | Strategic choice; deposition not relevant and could harm defense; strong evidence favored conviction. | No ineffective assistance; defense strategy reasonable and outcome unlikely to differ. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670 (Ga. 2001) (juror bias for cause requires fixed, unchangeable opinion)
- Nobles v. State, 201 Ga. App. 483 (Ga. App. 1991) (courts defer to trial court on voir dire bias findings)
- Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749 (Ga. 1983) (Brady-type material and in camera review framework)
- Barnes v. State, 157 Ga. App. 582 (Ga. App. 1981) (in camera material inquiry and suppression standard)
- McNeal v. State, 263 Ga. 397 (Ga. 1993) (remand for post-trial in camera examination when record incomplete)
- Blake v. State, 273 Ga. 447 (Ga. 2001) (trial court may consider admitted evidence and conduct during trial in sentencing)
- Valentine v. State, 289 Ga. App. 60 (Ga. App. 2007) (limits on considering non-record evidence during sentencing)
- Lemming v. State, 292 Ga. App. 138 (Ga. App. 2008) (recusal standard for judicial impartiality and bias)
- Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392 (Ga. 2010) (Strickland prejudice and performance standards in ineffective assistance)
- Davenport v. State, 316 Ga. App. 234 (Ga. App. 2012) (highly deferential standard for counsel performance review)
- Hargrove v. State, 299 Ga. App. 27 (Ga. App. 2009) ( Canon 3(E)(1) and recusal concepts considered)