Ellington v. State
292 Ga. 109
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Ellington was convicted of murdering his wife Berna Ellington and their two-year-old twin sons, Cameron and Christian, with three death sentences imposed by the trial court based on two statutory aggravating circumstances for each murder.
- The trial court prohibited Ellington from asking voir dire questions about whether jurors would consider all three sentencing options (death, life without parole, life with parole) in a case involving young child victims, which the Court finds to be a critical fact.
- The State emphasized the child-victim aspect during trial and sentencing, which the defense contends biased jurors against mercy and toward death.
- Forensic evidence showed brutal beatings with a hammer and multiple skull injuries, with a pattern of brutality consistent with the charges.
- Ellington raised numerous challenges to Georgia’s death-penalty scheme and to trial procedures, but the Court addresses those in the context of the sole remedy: the death sentences must be reviewed in light of the voir dire error.
- The Court ultimately reverses all three death sentences and remands for resentencing, while affirming the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding case-specific voir dire about child victims. | Ellington argues the child-victim fact could reveal juror bias on sentencing. | State contends such questioning is improper prejudgment and would contaminate voir dire. | Abuse of discretion; reversal of death sentences and remand for sentencing. |
| Whether jailhouse statements were properly admitted and harmless. | Ellington contends suppression of statements tainted the trial. | State argues any error was harmless given the overall evidence. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; does not require reversal. |
| Scope of OCGA § 15-12-133 to allow case-related voir dire about critical facts. | Ellington asserts broader right to ask about biases tied to case facts (child victims). | State argues limits are appropriate to avoid prejudgment. | Voir dire may address critical facts beyond charges; subject to limits and appellate deference. |
| Whether the verdict form and pattern jury instruction adequately captured the b(7) aggravating factor. | Ellington argues the verdict form failed to require jurors to specify which subpart of b(7) mattered. | State maintains pattern charges sufficiently inform jurors. | Defect in verdict form; must be corrected if retried; issue deemed likely to recur. |
| Whether the death-penalty voir dire issues are likely to recur on retrial. | Full admissibility of case-specific questions may be needed to prevent prejudice. | Trial court should retain discretion; questions must be properly framed. | Issues likely to recur; court prescribes framework but not routine use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (adequate voir dire necessary to identify unqualified jurors)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating factors proven to jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for conviction)
- Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398 (1983) (scope of voir dire and subject-matter of action concept in GA)