Mickens v. State
318 Ga. App. 601
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mickens was convicted by jury of rape and aggravated assault, with separate similar-transaction evidence of another rape.
- Appeal challenged: chain of custody for rape kit and mouth swabs, juror misconduct handling, trial court commentary, Allen charge regarding deliberation, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sufficiency of the evidence.
- DNA testing linked Mickens to the victim’s rape kit; a Columbus, Ohio DNA match led to a Georgia warrant for Mickens’s cheek swab.
- Swabs and rape kit evidence were admitted after testimony showed proper packaging, sealing, and chain-of-custody procedures, with no tampering found.
- Juror note questioned DNA issues; juror was not dismissed, replaced if needed, and ultimately remained under guidance during deliberations.
- Court scrutiny of objections and trial strategy found no reversible error; sufficiency of the DNA match and similar-transaction evidence supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chain of custody sufficiency | State showed proper custody despite minor gaps. | Mickens argues failure to prove chain-of-custody for swabs and rape kit. | No error; evidence properly authenticated and admitted. |
| Juror misconduct and mistrial | Juror note indicated potential DNA doubt but not prejudice. | Trial court should have dismissed or declared mistrial due to juror questioning. | Court did not abuse discretion; juror remained impartial during deliberations. |
| Court conduct during testimony and trial | Court’s questioning of DNA expert and comments reflected proper clarification. | Court improperly commented on evidence; violated OCGA § 17-8-57. | No improper comment; questioning within trial court's discretion. |
| Allen charge and hung jury guidance | Court guidance to jurors on deliberation time could be coercive. | Allen charge was improper and coercive. | Charge not coercive; not reversible given the circumstances. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel; sufficiency | Counsel failed to object on hearsay, best evidence, questions by jurors, and cross-examination issues. | Strategic decisions and trial tactics reasonably supported. | No ineffective assistance; evidence sufficient to sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance claims)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard; reasonable doubt not required to defeat conviction)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (trial judge may question witnesses; no automatic inference of guilt)
- Finley v. State, 286 Ga. 47 (Ga. 2009) (Georgia evidentiary standards and precedent on trial conduct)
- Holcomb v. State, 268 Ga. 100 (Ga. 1997) (juror misconduct requires substantial prejudice to reverse)
- Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883 (Ga. 2012) (general rule on reviewing weight of evidence)
- Tolbert v. State, 300 Ga. App. 51 (Ga. App. 2009) (appellate review of juror issues and trial conduct)