Heywood v. State
292 Ga. 771
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Heywood was convicted at trial of malice murder and related crimes arising from the 2010 shooting death of Andrew Wilson; the record includes a drug deal gone wrong, a bank-robbery style homicide, and co-conspirator Hunter testified against Heywood after pleading guilty.
- Hunter II drove Heywood to a parking lot to sell marijuana to the victim; Heywood jumped into the victim’s car, produced a gun, and shot the victim after assault and choking with a seatbelt.
- Witnesses identified Heywood and Hunter in photographic lineups; the medical examiner noted stippling near the entrance wound and a crime-scene investigator testified the gunshot came from the back seat.
- Despite Heywood’s absence from most bench conferences, the trial proceeded with him present for critical discussions; the blood spatter testimony was challenged but admitted.
- Heywood was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder plus additional consecutive terms for firearm possessions, concealing a death, and tampering with evidence; the verdict and sentence were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postpone trial for new jurors after prejudicial remark | Heywood | Heywood | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Heywood’s absence from bench conferences | Heywood | Heywood | No constitutional violation; absence did not prejudice defense except for one critical conference |
| Blood spatter testimony admissibility under OCGA 17-16-4(a)(4) | Heywood | Heywood | Amended statute requirements not met; claim lacks merit on record |
| Ex post facto challenge to life without parole | Heywood | Heywood | No ex post facto violation; law valid as applied; effective date lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. State, 279 Ga. 358 (2005) (no abuse when juror remark not implicating defendant; cure by admonition)
- Parks v. State, 275 Ga. 320 (2002) (absence from bench conferences does not violate right to be present)
- Huff v. State, 274 Ga. 110 (2001) (presence not required for housekeeping or evidentiary matters)
- Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512 (2012) (defendant has right to be present at jury removal proceedings; acquiescence possible)
- Sammons v. State, 279 Ga. 386 (2005) (jury composition changes are critical stages; defendant entitled to be present)
- Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (2011) (acquiescence concept when counsel objects are not raised)
- Kennedy v. State, 274 Ga. 396 (2001) (acquiescence when defendant silent after discussion)
- Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 235 (2004) (defendant acquiesced when no objection raised)
- Smith v. State, 319 Ga. App. 590 (2013) (rejection of right-to-be-present claim for housekeeping matters)