Fuller v. State
320 Ga. App. 620
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fuller was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, arising from two joined incidents.
- Evidence linked Fuller to the first victim’s Domino’s delivery robbery via accomplice testimony and network connections tying phone numbers to Fuller’s associates and residence.
- The second victim was robbed at Wal-Mart; Douglas forced entry and Fuller observed, then both fled, with Fuller moving into the same house as Douglas’s family.
- Fuller surrendered to police, gave a voluntary statement after Miranda; his videotaped confession was excluded on discovery grounds, but a detective later testified to the statements.
- At trial, the State’s closing argument and the handling of the videotaped confession were challenged in Fuller’s motion for new trial; the court denied relief.
- The jury acquitted Fuller of two March 2010 robberies and related charges, and the judge merged aggravated assaults into the armed robbery counts for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Fuller argues evidence failed to prove armed robbery and weapon possession. | Fuller contends lack of corroboration for accomplice testimony and identity. | Evidence sufficient to convict on both armed robbery and weapon possession. |
| Closing argument permissible scope | State’s workload comment violated law and required curative instruction or mistrial. | No proper objection; comments improper or prejudicial. | Closing comments within wide prosecutorial latitude; no reversible error. |
| Admission after discovery violation | Video confession should have been excluded; testimony about it violated discovery ruling. | State improperly elicited confession contents. | No error; discovery remedy allowed detective testimony about statements; admissibility ultimately proper. |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object | Counsel should have objected to admission of statements. | Counsel's performance deficient and prejudicial. | No reversible prejudice shown; trial counsel not shown to have changed outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. State, 305 Ga. App. 497 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Bryson v. State, 316 Ga. App. 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (accomplice corroboration sufficient to connect defendant)
- Howze v. State, 201 Ga. App. 96 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (accomplice liability and corroboration principles)
- Burton v. State, 293 Ga. App. 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (accomplice corroboration standard and sufficiency)
- O’Neal v. State, 288 Ga. 219 (Ga. 2010) (trial court's authority regarding mistrial and curative actions)
- Adams v. State, 283 Ga. 298 (Ga. 2008) (prosecutor closing argument limits and inferences)
- Tucker v. State, 313 Ga. App. 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (limits on vouching for witness veracity in closing)
- Manley v. State, 284 Ga. 840 (Ga. 2009) (closing argument evaluation and witness credibility)
- Colzie v. State, 289 Ga. 120 (Ga. 2011) (eyewitness identification sufficiency and credibility)
- Haynes v. State, 269 Ga. 181 (Ga. 1998) (scope of review for admissibility of confessions)
- Rouse v. State, 295 Ga. App. 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (ineffective assistance standard and prejudice showing)