Harrell v. State
321 Ga. App. 707
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Harrell was convicted by a jury on seven counts: armed robbery, aggravated assault with intent to rob, aggravated assault with a knife, robbery by force and intimidation, battery, possession of a knife during a felony, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
- Whitney Bonds, Harrell’s niece, is alleged to have been 16 at the time; co-defendant Gettrost, who pled guilty, testified against Harrell.
- Johnny Monroy moved to Rome to help manage his aunt’s market; he met Bonds, who claimed to be 18 but was 16.
- On November 21, 2011, Monroy and Bonds picked up Gettrost and drove to a park after Bonds and Gettrost texted Harrell about the plan to rob Monroy.
- At the park, Harrell and Johnson approached the truck; Monroy was assaulted, his wallet taken, and he was kicked while on the ground; Harrell pulled a knife and threatened to kill him.
- Monroy was robbed of about $1,000, his keys, and his cell phone; the keys and phone were recovered later near the park’s boat ramp; money was divided among the co-defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Armed robbery sufficiency | Harrell did not use the knife during or before the taking. | Armed robbery requires the weapon used as a concomitant to the taking. | Armed robbery conviction reversed; remanded for resentencing on other counts. |
| OCGA 17-8-57 cross-examination | Trial court violated by questioning Gettrost about credibility. | Questions were proper to develop truth and clarify testimony. | No violation; no error in trial court questioning. |
| Sufficiency of remaining counts | Evidence insufficient for Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. | Evidence supports all other convictions. | Evidence sufficient to support Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 288 Ga. 771 (Ga. 2011) (armed robbery analysis; knife positioning relative to taking)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. App. 633 (Ga. App. 2008) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence; no credibility weighing)
- Finley v. State, 286 Ga. 47 (Ga. 2009) (trial court may question witness to develop truth)
- Bush v. State, 317 Ga. App. 439 (Ga. App. 2012) (limits and purposes of voir dire and witness examination)
- Littlejohn v. State, 320 Ga. App. 197 (Ga. App. 2013) (discretion in trial court’s examination of witnesses)
- State v. Gardner, 286 Ga. 633 (Ga. 2010) (OCGA 17-8-57 applicability and waiver rules)