Fair v. State
288 Ga. 244
| Ga. | 2010Background
- Antron Fair and Damon Jolly were charged with malice murder and felony murder for Deputy Joseph Whitehead’s death during a no-knock warrant execution in 2006.
- After interim review, they were jointly re-indicted on a 34-count indictment including one malice murder and five felony murder counts.
- This interlocutory appeal addressed whether OCGA § 17-10-30(b)(8) suppresses the death-penalty aggravator without requiring knowledge that the victim was a peace officer, and whether OCGA § 16-3-24.2 immunity should apply given the officers’ lawful entry.
- The trial court denied immunity and the state sought to apply the b(8) aggravator; the court also considered whether to submit a special interrogatory on knowledge to the jury.
- The Court previously remanded to review conflicts of interest arising from defense counsel employment within the Georgia Capital Defender’s Office.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings with Fair present or valid waiver on conflict issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether b(8) violates equal protection without scienter | Fair contends no scienter means unequal treatment. | Jolly argues identical challenges to b(8) apply to both defendants. | Statute bears rational basis; no strict scrutiny required. |
| Whether lack of knowledge requirement for b(8) violates cruel/unusual punishment | Fair/Jolly argue lack of scienter makes punishment unconstitutional. | Defendants contend the absence of scienter is unconstitutional under state/federal constitutions. | Not ripe for review pretrial; the issue cannot be evaluated from the sentence actually imposed. |
| Whether the trial court erred in submitting a special interrogatory on knowledge | Fair/State differed on whether to require knowledge inquiry if life sentence imposed. | Jolly/Fair challenge the need for the interrogatory under b(8). | Reversed portion requiring a jury special interrogatory on knowledge. |
| Whether immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 applies pre-trial | State contends immunity denial should preclude prosecution; evidence shows lawful entry. | Defense argues immunity should apply where force was in response to unlawful force. | Trial court did not err in denying immunity; entry was deemed lawful for purposes of immunity analysis. |
| Whether Fair’s absence at critical stages violated rights requiring remand | Fair must be present at critical stages; absence warrants remedy. | N/A for this issue as to immunity; conflicts addressed separately. | Vacate/conflict hearing remand required with Fair present or valid waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair v. State, 284 Ga. 165 (2008) (interim review of death-penalty aggravator and immunity)
- Reed v. State, 264 Ga. 466 (1994) (equal protection: similarly situated requirement)
- Barnett v. State, 270 Ga. 472 (1999) (strict rationality test when no suspect class or fundamental right involved)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (deference to legislative judgments in death-penalty context)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (rational-basis review in statutory classifications)
- Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970) (reasonableness of classifications not requiring strict scrutiny)