Marriott v. State
320 Ga. App. 58
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marriott was convicted in Hall County on five counts of theft by receiving stolen property and one count of theft by deception.
- Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for theft by receiving and attacks trial‑court jury instructions as plain error.
- Missing firearms were reported by Marriott’s parents; the firearms were later traced to sales by Marriott.
- Investigators interviewed Marriott; she made inconsistent statements about gun ownership and possession and produced ammunition.
- Marriott sold multiple of her father’s stolen guns to Hall and Gwinnett County gun shops; proceeds and transfers were traced and ultimately returned to law enforcement.
- Indictment charged theft by taking, theft by receiving, burglary, and theft by deception; jury acquitted on burglary and theft by taking counts but convicted on theft by receiving and theft by deception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for theft by receiving | Marriott argues no direct/conclusive proof she stole the guns. | State contends circumstantial evidence allows conviction where identity as thief is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence to sustain theft by receiving |
| Plain error for not instructing mutual exclusivity of theft by taking and receiving | Marriott contends jury should be told they cannot convict of both crimes. | State acknowledges exclusivity rule and argues error was harmless given acquittal on theft by taking. | No reversible plain error; unlikely to affect outcome |
| Failure to instruct claim of right as defense to theft by deception | Marriott argues claim of right should be a defense to deception as well. | State argues no plain error; evidence supports deception conviction regardless. | No plain error; defense did not affect verdict on deception |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisyr v. State, 307 Ga. App. 724 (Ga. App. 2011) (standard for sufficiency; resolve conflicts in favor of verdict if some evidence supports elements)
- Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. App. 2010) (reaffirms review of whether evidence proves elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Fields v. State, 310 Ga. App. 455 (Ga. App. 2011) (overturns theft by receiving when identity conclusively shown)
- Petty v. State, 271 Ga. App. 547 (Ga. App. 2005) (felony theft by receiving sustained where no direct thief identification)
- Rivers v. State, 225 Ga. App. 558 (Ga. App. 1997) (charging both theft by taking and receiving; jury may determine which crime was proven)
- Duke v. State, 153 Ga. App. 204 (Ga. App. 1980) (circumstantial evidence supports theft by receiving when identity uncertain)
- Robinson v. State, 215 Ga. App. 125 (Ga. App. 1994) (upholds theft by receiving where no uncontradicted evidence of thief identity)
- Thomas v. State, 261 Ga. 854 (Ga. 1992) (theft by receiving allowed when thief identity uncertain; jury may infer guilt of receiving)
- Ingram v. State, 268 Ga. App. 149 (Ga. App. 2004) (support for duplicitous charging allowing alternative theories)
- Stratacos v. State, 312 Ga. App. 783 (Ga. App. 2011) (defense of claim of right applicable to theft charges)
- Drake v. State, 274 Ga. App. 882 (Ga. App. 2005) (evidence may support deception conviction despite claim of ownership dispute)
- Clemens v. State, 318 Ga. App. 16 (Ga. App. 2012) (as a whole, jury charge need not be perfectly precise if not confusing)