Jordan v. State
322 Ga. App. 252
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- October 11, 2009, at a nightclub, Jordan was ejected by a bouncer who then referenced a gun in response to Jordan's threats; Jordan vowed to return to the car and was heard to threaten violence.
- Shots were fired in the bouncer’s direction, injuring a bystander; no witness directly saw the shooter.
- Indictments charged aggravated assault against the bouncer (deadly weapon) and against the bystander.
- Evidence was circumstantial but sufficient to link Jordan to the shooting, including prior ejection, threats, and the direction of fire.
- The trial court denied a directed verdict on the bouncer count; the jury convicted on both counts, and the court charged the jury on aggravated assault; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault against the bouncer | Jordan argues the evidence is insufficient | State asserts circumstantial proof and intent could be inferred | Sufficient evidence; rational jury could find intent and that gunfire endangered the bouncer. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault against the bystander | Jordan contends no intent to injure the bystander | State argues transferred intent from aiming at bouncer to bystander | Sufficient evidence; intent to shoot at bouncer could be inferred and applied to bystander. |
| Whether the jury instruction on aggravated assault was proper | Instruction wrongly framed as placing victim in fear, not targeting the bouncer | Instruction encompassed both methods of committing simple assault; not error | Proper; no error in charging the jury on the two statutory methods. |
| Standard of review for jury-charge error | (Not stated as a separate instruction; inferred) | De novo standard applies | De novo review for jury-charge issues; distinction from plain-error doctrine clarified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nejad, 286 Ga. 695 (Ga. 2010) (firearm as deadly weapon per se)
- Giles v. State, 211 Ga. App. 594 (Ga. App. 1993) (circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction)
- Craft v. State, 309 Ga. App. 698 (Ga. App. 2011) (evidence of fear supports aggravated assault)
- Maynor v. State, 257 Ga. App. 151 (Ga. App. 2002) (reasonable apprehension required for assault)
- Mahan v. State, 282 Ga. App. 201 (Ga. App. 2006) (circumstantial evidence adequate to prove guilt)
- Johnson v. State, 281 Ga. 229 (Ga. 2006) (misjoinder of methods; restraint on instruction)
- Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756 (Ga. 2011) (de novo standard for reviewing jury charge)
- Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40 (Ga. App. 1999) (de novo review explained)
- Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239 (Ga. 2012) (plain error doctrine limits)