Graham v. the State
337 Ga. App. 664
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Joe Alan Graham contracted with the victim to build kitchen cabinets for $7,000, received $5,600 in two installments (down payment and second payment), and never completed installation or returned funds.
- Contract called for delivery in 4–5 weeks; plaintiff repeatedly sought updates, paid an extra $350 later, and paid a $150 door deposit via wire; communications ceased or were repeatedly delayed by Graham.
- Graham offered shifting explanations (measurement discrepancies, changed design, increased material costs) and ultimately demanded many thousands more to finish; victim never received cabinets or refunds and raised a civil claim.
- Two other witnesses (similar-act witnesses) testified they had hired Graham via Craigslist, paid him, and likewise did not receive finished cabinets or refunds.
- Graham testified he intended to perform, claimed delays or breaches by customers justified nonperformance, and denied intent to defraud. The jury convicted him of theft by taking; his amended motion for new trial was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support theft conviction | Evidence shows Graham accepted payment, failed to deliver or refund, so jury could infer fraudulent intent | Graham argued this was a civil dispute without criminal intent to deprive | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor a rational juror could find intent to deprive beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson standard) |
| Admissibility of similar-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) | Similar acts show intent, knowledge, and plan; probative value outweighs prejudice | Graham argued the other acts differed in circumstances and were more prejudicial than probative | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion: acts were relevant to intent, probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice, and sufficient proof existed that Graham committed them |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present additional favorable witnesses | Graham claimed counsel failed to investigate/present customers who would vouch for his legitimacy | State/court noted Graham failed to proffer the uncalled witnesses' testimony at the new-trial hearing | Affirmed — no prejudice shown under Strickland because defendant did not proffer testimony, so ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review; evidence must permit a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bearden v. State, 316 Ga. App. 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (theft supported where defendant accepted money, abandoned project, and failed to return funds)
- Smith v. State, 265 Ga. App. 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (evidence sufficient for theft where project abandoned and down payment not returned)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (Ga. 2016) (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b))
- Franklin v. State, 298 Ga. 636 (Ga. 2016) (reciting Strickland standard)
- McCoy v. State, 332 Ga. App. 626 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (similar-act evidence probative of intent where facts are comparable)