Haymer v. State
323 Ga. App. 874
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Glenn Haymer was tried for murder and aggravated assault after an elderly tenant was burned and fell from an upstairs garage-window apartment; jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault.
- Eyewitnesses (father, son) saw a man in dark clothes climb out of a window and heard him say he had set the old man on fire; a woman who had been smoking crack with Haymer identified him and said he returned agitated claiming someone had stolen his drugs and that he “took care of him.”
- A cell phone found in the victim’s apartment displayed Haymer’s name; four crack pipes were recovered. Medical evidence showed severe burns; victim later died and could not testify.
- Haymer gave inconsistent statements to detectives: admitted presence but claimed the victim was already burned and dove through the window due to excited delirium; defense presented an expert supporting that theory.
- During cross-examination of the lead detective, defense counsel probed the detectives’ tactic of telling Haymer his fingerprints were on the phone (when they had not dusted it); the trial judge commented it was "quite all right" for police to lie to suspects to "test" them.
- Haymer appealed both sufficiency of the evidence and the trial judge’s comment; the appellate court found evidence sufficient but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the judge’s remark violated OCGA § 17-8-57.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | State: Eyewitnesses, phone linking Haymer to scene, admissions and medical evidence support convictions | Haymer: Defense theory (victim burned earlier; excited delirium) created reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence was sufficient; jury properly resolved conflicts and convicted on lesser-included manslaughter and aggravated assault |
| Whether trial court’s comment endorsing police deception violated OCGA § 17-8-57 | Haymer: Judge’s remark that it was "quite all right" for police to lie bolstered detective credibility and expressed opinion on contested facts, requiring reversal | State: Court explanations of rulings do not normally violate § 17-8-57; comment was harmless/contextual | Court: Comment improperly expressed judicial approval of interrogation tactics and could be construed as bolstering witness credibility; reversal and new trial mandated |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (trial judge may not express opinion that bolsters witness credibility under OCGA § 17-8-57)
- Dean v. State, 168 Ga. App. 172 (trial court’s approval of interrogation methods before the jury impermissibly bolsters officer credibility)
- Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 588 (distinguishing permissible judicial comments about trial management from improper credibility endorsements)