Hickey v. State
325 Ga. App. 496
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hickey was convicted by a jury of felony obstruction of an officer after an altercation in a detention center in August 2009; related battery counts were merged at sentencing.
- Facts: during a dorm fight Hickey struck another detainee and then struck a uniformed officer in the lip after the officer grabbed him and told him to stop.
- At trial Hickey cross-examined an officer about routine post-fight procedures and proffered evidence that the other detainee was removed from the pod while Hickey received only a report.
- The trial court excluded testimony about actions taken after the fight as irrelevant; Hickey argued it was relevant to intent (and, he later argued on appeal, to impeachment, though that ground was not preserved).
- The trial court instructed the jury on felony obstruction (OCGA § 16-10-24(b)) and also gave an additional instruction describing obstruction by noncriminal acts that hinder an officer; Hickey did not contemporaneously object on the basis he raises on appeal.
- Hickey moved for a new trial; the court denied it. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting both the evidentiary and jury-charge challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hickey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of post-incident administrative evidence | Post-fight handling (other detainee put in hole; Hickey only got a report) was relevant to show lack of intent to hit the officer | Post-incident administrative actions occurred after the charged act and were not part of circumstances showing intent; thus irrelevant | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding evidence; not relevant to intent (and impeachment argument waived) |
| Additional jury charge language on obstruction | The extra instruction (describing obstruction via noncriminal acts that hinder an officer) could allow conviction for conduct other than intentionally doing violence to the officer | The charge tracked the statute and pattern instruction; read as a whole it fairly instructed jury on elements and intent; no authority bars using that language in felony obstruction instructions | Court: No plain error; charge as a whole was proper and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the jury verdict)
- Agan v. State, 262 Ga. 783 (trial court’s relevancy rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Jones v. State, 276 Ga. App. 810 (evidence of doubtful relevancy should be admitted and its weight left to jurors)
- Butler v. State, 284 Ga. App. 802 (intent may be inferred from words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and other circumstances connected with the act)
- Allen v. State, 290 Ga. 743 (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury-charge objections)
- Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239 (definition and application of plain-error review)
- Davis v. State, 290 Ga. 757 (jury charges considered as a whole to determine adequacy)
- Alvarez v. State, 312 Ga. App. 552 (no plain error where felony obstruction charge closely tracked statute and pattern instruction)
- Williams v. State, 277 Ga. App. 106 (failure to preserve certain litigation grounds by not raising them at trial can result in waiver)