Farley v. State
314 Ga. App. 660
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Farley was convicted by a jury of terroristic act and aggravated stalking.
- Farley and Gipson cohabited for about a year before relationship problems led Gipson to evict him and seek a protective order.
- Gipson obtained a temporary protective order requiring Farley to stay away from her residence; Farley was served the order the day of the incident.
- On the same day, Farley returned to Gipson's property with a gas can, piles of wood, and an industrial ladder, and later poured gasoline on the house and deck, prompting a fight.
- Farley denied placing wood or pouring gasoline in defense; witnesses and a firefighter corroborated gasoline on the house and deck; police and a firefighter testified regarding the scene and evidence.
- Farley challenged trial rulings and raised ineffective assistance and sufficiency claims on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of aggravated stalking evidence | Farley: insufficient pattern of harassing behavior. | State: evidence showed a pattern of harassment directed at Gipson. | Sufficient evidence of a pattern supporting aggravated stalking. |
| Sufficiency of terroristic act evidence | Farley: no proven pouring of gasoline; substance unclear. | State: witnesses testified gasoline poured on house and deck; fire/odor confirmed. | Sufficient evidence to convict of terroristic act. |
| Hearsay and cross-examination limitations | Farley: officer testimony contained hearsay and cross-examination was improperly restricted. | State: objections were proper; cross-examination limited to relevant issues. | No reversible error; objections/limitations properly upheld. |
| Right to recall witnesses not violated | Farley: denied recalls of Gipson, officer, and Deonte Gipson violated confrontation rights. | State: recall denied due to repetitious testimony after thorough cross-examination. | No constitutional impairment; court acted within discretion. |
| Jury instruction on admissions | Farley: the court should have given OCGA 24-3-53 instruction on admissions and confessions. | State: no error where written request was not made; evidence corroborated admissions. | Failure to charge was harmless given corroborating evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. State, 277 Ga.App. 670, 627 S.E.2d 413 (2006) (sufficiency review; corroboration of evidence standard)
- Burke v. State, 287 Ga. 377, 695 S.E.2d 649 (2010) (pattern of harassment; single violation may suffice when part of pattern)
- Hervey v. State, 308 Ga.App. 290, 707 S.E.2d 189 (2011) (evidence of threats and order violations supports pattern finding)
- Ramos v. State, 198 Ga.App. 65, 400 S.E.2d 353 (1990) (spontaneous statements and custodial interrogation considerations)
- McMichael v. State, 252 Ga.305, 313 S.E.2d 693 (1984) (confrontation and recall relevance)