Lane v. State
324 Ga. App. 303
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Armed robberies and burglaries occurred at two Louisville, Georgia residences on the same night; Merkeith Lane and Dominique Lane were among five charged defendants, four of whom were tried together and convicted.
- Witness Fleming identified Merkeith and Dominique as two of the robbers; he later testified about a prior fear of testifying and received anonymous threats.
- B. M., a 16-year-old co-defendant, testified; the court closed the courtroom for his testimony over defense waiver, and he testified that the group including Dominique and others went to the first and second residences.
- Merkeith confessed after a Miranda-informed custodial interview; the state introduced his statements with redacted co-defendant names, and other co-defendant statements were admitted as to ‘others.’
- Dominique challenged trial counsel's effectiveness regarding in-court identification and a requested accomplice-corroboration jury instruction; the court rejected these claims and affirmed Dominique’s conviction.
- The court affirmed Dominique’s convictions for two armed robberies, attempted armed robbery, and two burglaries, concluding the evidence was sufficient to support a rational juror’s verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Merkeith’s statement admitted under OCGA 24-3-50 voluntary? | Merkeith | Lane | No error; totality supports voluntariness |
| Was the courtroom closure for B. M.’s testimony preserved for review? | Merkeith | Lane | Not preserved; improper closure not reviewed absent ineffective counsel claim |
| Did Bruton v. United States prohibit admitting nontestifying co-defendant statements that implicate Merkeith? | Merkeith | Lane | Not Bruton-violative; statements did not facially incriminate Merkeith |
| Was Dominique’s counsel ineffective for failing to challenge identification and for not requesting an accomplice-corroboration charge? | Dominique | Lane | No ineffective assistance; independent identification and corroboration present; no plain error |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict Dominique of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and burglary? | Dominique | Lane | Evidence sufficient; corroboration beyond accomplice testimony and independent identification |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (co-defendant statements implicating a non-testifying defendant require exclusion)
- Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797 (Ga. 1998) (Confrontation Clause requires redaction or exclusion when a co-defendant’s statement implicates another)
- Davis v. State, 272 Ga. 327 (Ga. 2000) (redaction limits Bruton issues when not facially incriminating)
- Richard v. State, 287 Ga. App. 399 (Ga. App. 2007) (harmless error analysis for Bruton violations when overwhelming evidence exists)
- Samuels v. State, 288 Ga. 48 (Ga. 2010) (totality of the circumstances governs admissibility of custodial statements)
- Preston v. State, 282 Ga. 210 (Ga. 2007) (admonitions to tell truth are permissible; no impermissible hope of benefit)
- Brown v. State, 290 Ga. 865 (Ga. 2012) (slightest hope of benefit relates to reduced punishment; must connect to charge or sentence)
- Johnson v. State, 258 Ga. 506 (Ga. 1988) (accomplice corroboration rule governs when the sole witness is an accomplice)