EZEBUIRO v. State
308 Ga. App. 282
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ezebuiro was convicted of robbery by intimidation and battery of a person aged 65 or older after observing victim handling cash during prior interview.
- The victim, a 66-year-old woman, required medical assistance to travel to court and testified in a wheelchair on the first day of evidence.
- During rebuttal, the State sought to recall the victim; due to time, she was brought to court on a gurney rather than in a wheelchair.
- Ezebuiro objected to testifying from a gurney and to any explanation by the court about the gurney arrangement; no mistrial was granted.
- The court sentenced Ezebuiro to one year in prison followed by seven years of probation, including restitution of $800.
- Ezebuiro appeals on the admissibility of gurney testimony and the restitution order as a special condition of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did gurney testimony prejudice Ezebuiro? | Ezebuiro argues gurney testimony generated improper sympathy and prejudice. | State contends the court had discretion to accommodate a witness with special needs. | No abuse of discretion; testimony from the gurney was permissible. |
| Was restitution properly imposed as a sentence condition? | Ezebuiro asserts improper procedural steps and unwritten findings. | State maintains restitution can be ordered without separate hearings or written findings after amendment. | Restitution upheld; no reversible error in waiving separate hearing or written findings. |
| Was a restitution hearing required when amount disputed? | Ezebuiro claims a hearing should have been held under OCGA 17-14-7(b). | State argues the issue could be resolved in sentencing; no separate hearing required here. | Waived; no error for resolving restitution at sentencing rather than in a separate hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lonergan v. State, 281 Ga. 637 (Ga. 2007) (trial court has discretion to accommodate witnesses with special needs)
- Williamson v. State, 234 Ga.App. 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (no abuse when allowing a vulnerable witness to testify with accommodation)
- Lemley v. State, 245 Ga. 350 (Ga. 1980) (wide discretion afforded trial courts in proceedings)
- Presley v. State, 285 Ga. 270 (Ga. 2009) (emphasizes that alternatives are not sua sponte duty of court)
- Grant v. State, 289 Ga.App. 230 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (failure to object waives appellate review of trial conduct)
- McCart v. State, 289 Ga.App. 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (post-2005 restitution framework; no written findings required)
- Ingram v. State, 262 Ga.App. 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (sentencing may consider evidence admitted during guilt phase)
- Regent v. State, 306 Ga.App. 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (restitution awards supported by preponderance of the evidence)
- In the Interest of E.W., 290 Ga.App. 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (no reversible error for lack of written restitution findings)