Grant v. State
326 Ga. App. 121
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Michael Grant, a restaurant manager, shot the short-order cook multiple times after an argument; the cook suffered extensive injuries and multiple surgeries. Grant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.
- After the shooting, an SCMPD officer attempted a traffic stop; Grant fled, officers pursued, and Grant was later arrested. Grant made recorded post-arrest statements admitting the shootings and describing events.
- At trial Grant sought to assert justification (self-defense) and to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts against third parties; the trial court excluded some of that evidence.
- The State introduced recorded interviews of witnesses (prior consistent statements) through the lead detective over defense objection. The trial court admitted them.
- At sentencing the State relied on three prior felony convictions to impose a recidivist, no-parole sentence; Grant objected to two priors and counsel did not object to a 1981 guilty plea used as the third prior. Grant later challenged counsel’s effectiveness for that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence/venue for fleeing or eluding (OCGA § 40-6-395) | State failed to prove venue (county) for eluding charge | Streets traveled and SCMPD officers’ testimony suffice; no directed verdict was requested | Reversed conviction for fleeing/eluding for insufficient proof of venue; street names and agency alone insufficient |
| Admission of victim’s prior violent acts against third parties (justification defense) | Evidence would make out prima facie justification (victim advanced with something in hand) | Court properly excluded evidence because Grant left, returned armed, and initial assault had ended | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the proffered evidence; jury still heard substantial evidence of victim’s violent history |
| Admission of prior consistent statements (recorded interviews) | Admission was improper bolstering; statements did not predate alleged fabrication | Cross-examination raised motives; statements were admissible to rebut impeachment | Admission was erroneous because statements postdated alleged fabrication, but error was harmless as other evidence supported convictions |
| Use of 1981 guilty plea to enhance sentence (recidivist ineligibility for parole) & ineffective assistance for failing to object | Plea record does not show full Boykin warnings; counsel ineffective for not objecting, creating reasonable probability of different sentence | State showed certified plea record and counsel representation; defendant waived challenge by failing to object at sentencing | Trial court erred to the extent plea’s voluntariness was not resolved at sentencing; Grant made affirmative showing of infirmity so sentence vacated and remanded for Nash-phase proceedings; ineffective-assistance claim meritorious enough to require resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State, 310 Ga. App. 144 (discussing standard for sufficiency on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900 (venue is an element to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333 (prior consistent statements admissible only to rebut specific charges of recent fabrication, influence, or motive and must predate the alleged fabrication)
- Nash v. State, 271 Ga. 281 (burden-shifting framework for collateral attack on prior plea used to enhance sentence)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (in collateral attack State need only show plea existed and defendant had counsel before presumption of regularity applies)
- Cloud v. State, 290 Ga. 193 (justification cannot be based on an assault that already ended)
- Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363 (inadmissibility of statements that improperly bolster witness credibility)