Hosley v. State
322 Ga. App. 425
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Darius Hosley was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, possession of a gun during the commission of a crime, fleeing a police officer, carrying a gun without a license, and simple battery related to a mall encounter where he allegedly forced his estranged wife and their two‑month‑old into a car at gunpoint and fired shots in the parking lot.
- Hosley testified he suffered PTSD from military service and denied threatening his wife; he claimed he fired warning shots when he felt threatened. His self‑reported combat history was contradicted by VA records and a shipmate.
- A clinical psychologist testified diagnosing PTSD based on Hosley’s self‑report and stated he did not think Hosley was responsible; a forensic psychologist and VA records rebutted that claim, indicating malingering and responsibility.
- At trial defense counsel requested and received jury instructions on self‑defense and justification but did not request a not guilty by reason of insanity instruction.
- Hosley moved for a new trial raising ineffective assistance for failure to request an insanity charge, contending the court should have charged insanity sua sponte, arguing merger of kidnapping and false imprisonment, and objecting to rebuttal testimony about VA findings.
- The trial court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed, finding no deficiency or prejudice, no duty to give an insanity charge sua sponte, no merger, and no error in admitting expert testimony based on VA records.
Issues
| Issue | Hosley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request insanity instruction | Counsel was deficient for not requesting a not guilty by reason of insanity charge | Counsel reasonably pursued self‑defense/justification; evidence didn’t support insanity instruction | No ineffective assistance — strategic choice and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Court should charge insanity sua sponte | Court had duty under OCGA §17‑7‑131(b)(1)(C) to instruct when insanity defense implicated | Insanity defense was not interposed; no obligation to instruct absent request | No duty to charge sua sponte; claim fails |
| Merger of false imprisonment with kidnapping | False imprisonment should merge into kidnapping | The offenses were separate in time and proven with different facts | No merger; convictions properly distinct |
| Admission of rebuttal testimony re: VA psychiatrist via witness | Testimony improperly presented hearsay/conduit for absent VA psychiatrist | Expert may rely on others’ data; such reliance affects weight, not admissibility; testimony cumulative with VA records | Admission proper; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853 (review standards for ineffective assistance and prejudice)
- Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226 (appellate review of trial court findings in ineffectiveness claims)
- Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. App. 33 (trial strategy and counsel’s choice of defense theory)
- Scales v. State, 310 Ga. App. 48 (merger analysis — separate facts and timing)
- Treadwell v. State, 285 Ga. 736 (expert may base opinion on others’ findings; weight for jury)
- Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (related to expert testimony rulings)
- McNaughton v. State, 290 Ga. 894 (cumulative evidence and admissibility)