Jordan v. State
293 Ga. 619
Ga.2013Background
- On Dec. 22, 2007, James Yarbrough and his nephew were picked up in a black Honda by appellant Darius Jordan (who identified himself as "Whodi"); later a third man produced a gun, robbed them, and Yarbrough was shot after refusing to walk away.
- Video identified the Honda; its owner, Bertha Grier, told police she had lent the car to Jordan and, while at the stop, placed Jordan on speakerphone in the investigator’s presence.
- During that call Jordan admitted picking up and intending to rob the victims and said one of the men was shot after "bucking." Jordan later gave admissions to police after hours of interrogation.
- Jordan was indicted and convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses; he received life plus consecutive terms; he moved for a new trial, which was denied.
- On appeal Jordan challenged (1) admission of the telephone statements as violating Miranda, (2) denial of two mistrial motions related to (a) an investigator’s testimony about Jordan’s evasiveness and (b) a prosecutor’s comment implying belief in guilt, and (3) trial counsel’s effectiveness for not arguing Grier was a state agent and for failing to object to the investigator’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Jordan’s phone statements to Grier without Miranda warnings | Statements were elicited while police were present and effectively elicited by state actors; Miranda protections apply | Grier called of her own initiative, Otts discouraged the call, did not direct questioning or act as an agent, and Jordan was not in custody; Miranda not triggered | Statements admissible; Miranda not implicated because no governmental coercion or custody existed |
| Investigator Otts’ testimony that Jordan gave the "run-around" during interrogation | Testimony was impermissible opinion on ultimate issue and improperly put character in issue | Testimony described interrogation dynamics based on Otts’ observations and was relevant; curative instruction was given | No error: testimony explained interview circumstances, was permissible, and any prejudice was cured by instruction |
| Prosecutor’s closing comment implying personal belief that evidence proved armed robbery | Comment improperly expressed prosecutor’s personal belief in defendant’s guilt and required mistrial | Trial court corrected the remark, had prosecutor restate based on evidence, and jurors were reminded they decide facts | No mistrial required: corrective measures removed any improper impression |
| Ineffective assistance for not arguing Grier was a state agent and not objecting to Otts’ testimony | Counsel should have sought suppression on state-agent theory and objected to testimony placing character in issue | Arguments would have lacked merit; meritless objections do not establish ineffective assistance under Strickland | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s omissions involved meritless arguments, so Strickland prongs not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda custodial warning rule)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (Fifth Amendment concern is governmental coercion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Sewell v. State, 283 Ga. 558 (Miranda not required absent custody or coercion)
- Cook v. State, 270 Ga. 820 (statements to non‑law enforcement do not implicate Miranda)
- Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (witness not an agent when action taken on own initiative)
- Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304 (lay witness may give opinions based on personal observations)
- Fincher v. State, 276 Ga. 480 (corrective measures can cure prosecutorial remarks)
- Castell v. State, 250 Ga. 776 (limits on counsel argument and remedies for improper remarks)