Jarnigan v. State
295 Ga. 603
Ga.2014Background
- On April 28, 2010, Jarnigan arranged to visit a home hosting "stripper parties" with intent to facilitate a robbery; Davis and Guice acted as armed accomplices. A gunshot through a bedroom door fatally wounded Dontavious Blair; Jarnigan drove Davis and Guice away. Investigators found Davis's fingerprints on the front door glass.
- Jarnigan and Davis were tried together, convicted of malice murder and related counts; Davis received an additional firearm-possession during felony conviction. Guice pleaded to voluntary manslaughter. Sentences included life imprisonment and consecutive terms; some counts were vacated or merged post-trial.
- Both defendants appealed, arguing the trial court improperly commented on evidence. Davis raised additional claims: improper admission of fingerprint "verification" testimony, undue restriction of cross-examination of the fingerprint examiner, and a constructive amendment via the firearm-possession jury charge.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia independently reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and found it adequate to support the convictions under Jackson v. Virginia.
- The Court addressed each appellate contention and affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Jarnigan/Davis Argument | State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court comment on evidence by sustaining objection during defense closing | Ruling amounted to an impermissible comment on the evidence in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 | A simple ruling sustaining an objection is not a prohibited comment; court also instructed jury that rulings do not indicate opinion | No violation; sustaining objection was not OCGA § 17-8-57 error and jury was properly cautioned |
| Admissibility of fingerprint examiner's testimony that another examiner "verified" her work | Testimony that another examiner "verified" results was hearsay and inadmissible | Testimony explained ACE‑V methodology; verification is part of the expert's basis and therefore admissible to explain opinion | Admissible in limited form as part of the basis for the expert's opinion; trial court did not err |
| Restriction of cross-examination of fingerprint examiner | Defense sought to probe foreign/narrow standards and a specific FBI misidentification case; limitation prevented effective impeachment of expert | Trial court has wide latitude to limit marginally relevant or overly particular cross-examination; defense still elicited that no national standard exists and that mistakes are possible | No abuse of discretion; limits were reasonable and defendant explored general reliability issues |
| Jury instruction on unlawful possession of a firearm during a felony ("on person" vs "within arm's reach") | Instruction expanded the manner charged in the indictment, causing a constructive amendment | Even if instructional breadth differs, providing the indictment to the jury and instructing that State must prove every material allegation cures potential harm | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error because court read the indictment and properly instructed jury on burden of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (addresses vacatur of felony murder by operation of law)
- Walker v. State, 308 Ga. App. 176 (sustaining/overruling objections generally not § 17-8-57 violations)
- Ellis v. State, 292 Ga. 276 (court remarks and jury cautions regarding comments on evidence)
- Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274 (expert may explain basis and methodology for opinions)
- Roebuck v. State, 277 Ga. 200 (expert-opinion foundation and admissibility principles)
- State v. Jones, 368 S.E.2d 844 (N.C. 1988) (verification in ACE‑V methodology not inadmissible hearsay)