Long v. State
307 Ga. App. 669
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Anthony Long was convicted by an Athens-Clarke County jury of burglary under OCGA § 16-7-1.
- The March 19, 2004 burglary at 858 Hill Street involved four University of Georgia students; Long entered without permission after knocking and entering through the back door.
- The victims testified Long entered the home without consent and was observed inside, causing fear; some residents recognized him as someone who had solicited money previously.
- The State introduced evidence of two prior burglaries (190 Wynburn Avenue and 195 South Finley Street) occurring within proximity and time, with Long identified in lineups and by recovered items.
- Long testified he went to 858 Hill Street to visit a friend and asked for work, denying any intent to steal; the State challenged his account with victim testimony.
- The trial court admitted the prior-burglary evidence under the three-prong similarity test; Long challenged sufficiency, admissibility of similar transactions, and other trial rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the burglary evidence sufficient to prove intent to commit theft? | Long contends no intent to steal was proven. | Long argues there was no theft intent shown beyond entry. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported intent to steal. |
| Whether similar transactions were properly admitted. | State asserts three-prong test satisfied for admissibility. | Long argues improper propensity evidence of prior burglaries. | Admissible; three-prong test satisfied and court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did prosecutor's closing misstatement require mistrial or curative instruction? | State's argument allowed inference of intent from valuables and entry. | Misstatement potentially misled jury; should have been curative or mistrial granted. | No reversible error; immediate correction and proper instructions negated prejudice. |
| Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to alcohol in counsel's system? | Counsel's performance allegedly deficient due to intoxication. | No prejudice; no demonstrable deficiency or impact on outcome. | No reversible error; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State, 277 Ga.App. 92, 625 S.E.2d 465 (2005) (jury may infer intent to commit theft from presence of valuables and lack of alternative motive)
- Griffith v. State, 286 Ga.App. 859, 650 S.E.2d 413 (2007) (evidence supports burglary verdict where presence of valuables and unauthorized entry shown)
- Ryles v. State, 216 Ga.App. 462, 454 S.E.2d 639 (1995) (proof beyond reasonable doubt not required for independent similar crimes; possession evidence suffices)
- Flowers v. State, 269 Ga.App. 443, 604 S.E.2d 285 (2004) (trial court’s discretion governs admission of similar transactions under the three-prong test)
- Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415, 435(10), 349 S.E.2d 717 (1986) (prosecutor misstatement may be cured by prompt correction and proper jury instruction)
- Freels v. State, 195 Ga.App. 609, 394 S.E.2d 405 (1990) (remedial action by court can prevent misleading statements from harming defendant)
- Robinson v. State, 277 Ga. 75, 586 S.E.2d 313 (2003) (ineffective-assistance standard requires deficient performance and prejudice)