Harrington v. State, 300 Ga. 574

Background

On January 5, 2011, 72-year-old Mamie Wright was found shot in her trailer; she died later that day. The scene showed signs of burglary and multiple shots fired, including an execution-type shot. Wright’s deactivated cell phone was later reactivated and assigned to Appellant Brandon Harrington’s number.
Surveillance placed a man wearing a white jacket (matching clothing Harrington later wore) moving items from Wright’s trailer to Harrington’s residence and driving an SUV consistent with Harrington’s vehicle. Video also showed Harrington at a convenience store later that morning.
Police recovered Wright’s cell phone from Harrington’s car, and a shoebox in his SUV contained items linked to Wright and to Harrington, plus a .38 revolver. Ballistics matched that .38 revolver to the bullets recovered from the scene and the bullet removed from Wright.
Harrington was indicted and convicted of malice murder, felony murder (based on burglary and aggravated assault), aggravated assault, armed robbery, burglary, and multiple firearms offenses. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder (among other sentences).
On appeal, Harrington challenged (1) the admission of two recorded custodial interviews and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the armed robbery conviction. The Court also identified a sentencing/merger error regarding burglary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of armed robbery evidence (whether handgun use was prior to or contemporaneous with taking the phone)	State: evidence showed Harrington possessed Wright’s phone and used a handgun in the incident supporting armed robbery.	Harrington: circumstantial evidence supports that the phone may have been taken earlier during the burglary, not contemporaneously with use of the gun.	Reversed armed robbery conviction — evidence insufficient because it was at least equally likely the phone was taken before the victim encountered the defendant, so the State failed to prove use of the gun prior to/contemporaneous with the taking.
Admissibility of statements from first custodial interview (invocation of right to remain silent)	State: statements were voluntary and any slight post-invocation questioning was harmless because statements were cumulative.	Harrington: he invoked his right to silence and subsequent questioning violated Miranda, so those statements should be suppressed.	No reversible error; even if the ~2-minute segment after alleged invocation was inadmissible, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because statements were cumulative and consistent with other evidence.
Admissibility of second custodial interview (whether defendant initiated)	State: second interview was initiated by Harrington (asked to smoke then said he would talk) and he waived Miranda again.	Harrington: any later statements flowed from a prior alleged Miranda violation and thus are tainted unless he initiated freely.	Admitted second interview — trial court’s finding that Harrington initiated further discussion was not clearly erroneous and initiation was not the product of prior unlawful interrogation.
Sentencing/merger of burglary with felony murder count	State: trial court merged burglary into felony murder; sentences reflected that merger.	Harrington: merger was improper because felony murder based on burglary was vacated and burglary does not merge into malice murder.	Vacated in part and remanded for entry of conviction and sentencing on the burglary count (trial court erred in merging burglary into a vacated felony-murder charge).

Key Cases Cited

Fox v. State, 289 Ga. 34 (defining requirement that firearm use be prior to or contemporaneous with taking for armed robbery)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233 (merger principles for burglary and murder convictions)
Favors v. State, 296 Ga. 842 (merger and conviction interplay with murder counts)
Mack v. State, 296 Ga. 239 (requirement that invocation of right to remain silent be unambiguous and initiation doctrine)
Cheley v. State, 299 Ga. 88 (post-invocation initiation of further questioning supports admissibility)
Cook v. State, 274 Ga. 891 (harmlessness where statements are cumulative of independent evidence)
Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (deference to jury on credibility and sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (hearing on admissibility of custodial statements)