Holder v. State
319 Ga. App. 239
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Holder was convicted of burglary, four counts of kidnapping, four counts of armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a felony.
- On appeal, Holder argues insufficient evidence for some convictions, trial court errors in jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The appellate court reverses one kidnapping conviction (Gillespie) but affirms the remaining convictions.
- Key issue is whether the asportation element of kidnapping was proven for each victim under Garza v. State
- Garza’s four-factor test is applied variably; some movements were not inherent to other crimes, affecting asportation analysis.
- Accomplice testimony was deemed sufficiently corroborated to sustain most convictions, and several trial-court errors were found harmless or non-reversible
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asportation sufficiency for kidnapping Gillespie | Holder alleges Garza requires more; Gillespie movement was incidental | Garza governs asportation; movement may sustain kidnapping | Gillespie kidnapping reversed due to insufficient asportation evidence |
| Asportation sufficiency for Patterson, Johnson, Brown kidnapping | Movement from bedrooms to living room supports asportation | Movement part of burglary/robbery; not inherently necessary | Convictions affirmed for Patterson, Johnson, Brown kidnapping |
| Accomplice corroboration sufficiency | Accomplice testimony alone cannot convict | Corroboration need not be independent of accomplices; any connecting evidence suffices | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions (except Gillespie) despite accomplice testimony reliance |
| Garza retroactivity and jury instructions on asportation | Garza applies retroactively to require Garza-based instruction | Old standard applied; harmless error analysis governs | Garza retroactivity application found; error harmless as to Patterson/Johnson/Brown; no reversal for those counts; Gillespie remains reversed |
| Jury instructions on theft and other charge definitions | Failure to define 'theft' could mislead | No reversible error; theft is a general term; no request to define it | No reversible error; definition of theft not required absent a requested instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 702 S.E.2d 0?; 284 Ga. 696 (Ga. 2008) (four-factor Garza test for asportation in kidnapping cases; not all factors required to be satisfied)
- Patterson v. State, 720 S.E.2d 278; 312 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. App. 2011) (evidence of asportation not inherent to burglary/robbery supports kidnapping conviction)
- Henderson v. State, 675 S.E.2d 28; 285 Ga. 240 (Ga. 2009) (asportation element when movement enhances danger to victims)
- Williams v. State, 705 S.E.2d 906; 304 Ga. App. 787 (Ga. App. 2011) (asportation sufficient where movement increased defendant's control and danger)
- Bramblett v. State, 381 S.E.2d 530; 191 Ga. App. 238 (Ga. App. 1989) (asportation principles in robbery contexts)