Goolsby v. State
311 Ga. App. 650
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Goolsby was convicted on 13 felony counts for invasions and rapes of S.P. and H.M.M.; counts for S.P. included kidnapping with bodily injury (Count 6) and other offenses; counts for H.M.M. included kidnapping with bodily injury (Count 7) among other charges.
- DNA and fingerprint evidence linked Goolsby to the assaults, and both victims identified him; H.M.M. picked him out in a lineup.
- Goolsby challenged only the asportation element of kidnapping with bodily injury, arguing insufficient evidence and instructional error.
- Garza v. State changed the test for asportation to a four-factor Garza test, applying retroactively to cases in the pipeline; amended kidnapping statute in 2009 reestablished slight movement sufficiency for post-2009 crimes.
- The appellate court reversed Count 6 (S.P.) for asportation insufficiency but affirmed Count 7 (H.M.M.) asportation sufficiency, and found any jury-charge error harmless for Count 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the asportation element proven for S.P. under Garza? | Goolsby—insufficient asportation. | State—movement was sufficient under Garza's four factors. | No; asportation insufficient for S.P. |
| Is the asportation element proven for H.M.M. under Garza? | Goolsby—insufficient for H.M.M. too, or at least not clearly proven. | State—asportation proven by movement from front door to bedroom with dangerous isolation. | Yes; asportation sufficient for H.M.M. |
| Was the Garza-based instructional error harmless for Count 7? | Error requires reversal if outcome uncertain. | Harmless given overwhelming evidence against Goolsby. | Harmless error as to Count 7; Count 6 already reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (2008) (established four-factor test for asportation; retroactive application to Garza pipeline cases)
- Tate v. State, 287 Ga. 364 (2010) (noting post-2009 change in kidnapping statute; asportation standards)
- Dixon v. State, 303 Ga.App. 517 (2010) ( Garza standard does not require all four factors; movement not inherently part of offense may establish asportation)
- Henderson v. State, 285 Ga. 240 (2009) (movement may create additional danger to victim)
- Escoffier v. State, 303 Ga. App. 317 (2010) (asportation insufficient where movement occurs during other offenses and does not increase danger)
- Williams v. State, 304 Ga.App. 787 (2010) (asportation proven where movement allows control during ongoing offense)
- Kirt v. State, 309 Ga.App. 227 (2011) (mootness of certain error when key convictions reversed)