MATHIS v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 206
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher Mathis, former elected chief magistrate, operated a Ponzi-like cattle investment scheme; victims collectively invested over $898,000 and most received little or no return.
- Thirteen victims (five over 65) were solicited; Mathis issued some bad checks and repaid a few early investors.
- A 52-count indictment (trial on 52 counts) resulted in convictions for deposit account fraud, theft by taking, theft by conversion, theft by deception, exploitation of an elder, forgery, secreting property, and violation of oath of office. Two additional counts were severed and pled guilty later.
- Mathis moved for a new trial; the trial court denied the motion (but corrected three sentences). Mathis appealed, raising (1) a challenge to a jury instruction about reviewing the indictment during deliberations and (2) that certain theft convictions should merge for sentencing.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed most convictions but held that theft by taking (the general theft offense) merged with more specific theft offenses and vacated the theft-by-taking sentences, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mathis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction telling jurors they "may, if you choose, review the details of each charge" | Instruction implied jurors need not read the indictment; prejudicial given complex, voluminous indictment | Charge read as whole preserved burden of proof and presumption of innocence; jury had indictment and verdict forms | Waived for failure to object; reviewed for plain error and denied — no effect on outcome; no reversible error |
| Merger of theft convictions (theft by conversion & deception into theft by taking) | All convictions stemmed from same taking of the same money from same victims and thus should merge | State argued theft-by-taking is a general offense that can coexist with specific theft statutes; convictions for specific thefts may survive | Theft by taking is the general crime and merges under OCGA §16-1-7(a)(2); trial court's theft-by-taking sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether theft by conversion and theft by deception merge with each other | (implied) Mathis argued multiple theft convictions arose from same conduct | State argued each specific theft offense requires different elements | Court held theft by conversion and theft by deception do not merge with each other because each requires an element the other does not; no merger between those specific offenses |
| Waiver of verdict-form/mutually exclusive verdict argument | Mathis did not contemporaneously object to verdict form | State noted failure to object waives claim | Court found issue waived; Mathis did not preserve mutually exclusive verdict argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (discusses plain-error review of jury instructions) (applied)
- Reyes v. State, 322 Ga. App. 496 (plain-error jury instruction framework) (applied)
- Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609 (jury instructions must be read as a whole) (applied)
- Patterson v. State, 289 Ga. App. 663 (theft-by-taking statute is a broad catch-all that can encompass deception or conversion proofs) (discussed)
- Adkins v. State, 301 Ga. 153 (merger of general and specific offenses) (analogous)
- Lavigne v. State, 299 Ga. App. 712 (plain legal error standard for merger questions) (applied)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (required-evidence test not applicable where crimes are general vs. specific) (discussed)