Hornbuckle v. State
300 Ga. 750
| Ga. | 2017Background
- Hornbuckle moved in with Charles Raburn; their relationship was violent and alcohol-fueled with prior physical incidents.
- She was arrested in July 2007 for family violence battery after striking Raburn with a glass and was released on bond with a no-contact condition.
- In August 2007 Hornbuckle went to Raburn’s home (violating bond), a physical altercation occurred, and Raburn was fatally stabbed.
- Physical evidence and witness testimony conflicted with Hornbuckle’s account that she acted in self-defense (limited injuries to Hornbuckle, multiple wounds on victim, 911 recording in which she said “I did stab him”).
- Hornbuckle was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life; she raised claims on appeal including denial of pretrial immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, jury-charge errors, failure to give certain instructions, abandonment of general‑grounds new-trial claims, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction, rejecting Hornbuckle’s immunity, instructional, preservation, and ineffective-assistance arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hornbuckle) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of pretrial immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 | Hornbuckle claims she was reasonably defending herself and entitled to immunity | Evidence undermined her account; physical evidence and statements suggested aggression, not self-defense | Denial affirmed; trial court’s factual findings supported by record |
| Jury instruction on revenge | Instruction misstated law or was unsupported by evidence | Pattern charge accurately stated law; slight evidence suffices to submit revenge theory | No error; pattern instruction proper and supported by evidence |
| Omission of definitions (forcible felony/underlying crimes) | Court should have defined underlying crimes and "forcible felony" for justification claim | No contemporaneous request or objection; charge on justification was comprehensive | Reviewed for plain error and rejected — no showing the omission affected outcome |
| Failure to consider general‑grounds (weight of evidence) in new-trial ruling | Trial court failed to address OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 | Counsel abandoned general grounds by filing a later second amended motion that omitted them and by affirming reliance on that motion at the hearing | Affirmed — general grounds deemed abandoned by counsel’s conduct |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (calling witness; not objecting; expert questioning) | Counsel erred in calling victim’s ex-wife, not objecting to supervisor testimony, and not eliciting explicit reasonableness testimony from expert | Choices were reasonable strategy; supervisor testimony admissible under necessity; expert testified extensively and jury was instructed on its limited use | Strickland standard not met; performance not shown deficient or prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard)
- Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410 (burden to show entitlement to immunity at pretrial hearing)
- Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441 (review standard for denial of immunity; defer to trial court factual findings)
- Rector v. State, 285 Ga. 714 (revenge charge and related law)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Teems v. State, 256 Ga. 675 (evidence supporting revenge instruction)
- Shockley v. State, 297 Ga. 661 (witness selection as trial strategy; when it fails ineffective-assistance claim)
- Davis v. State, 294 Ga. 486 (necessity exception to hearsay admissibility)