Middleton v. State
309 Ga. 337
Ga.2020Background
- In Feb. 2014 Middleton armedly took a 2008 Honda Element from a woman (victim identified him); police later chased, stopped, and captured him; victim’s property and identifying clothing/phones were found at his residence.
- At trial Middleton was convicted of hijacking a motor vehicle (carjacking), theft by receiving (by retaining the same vehicle), multiple firearm offenses, and other crimes.
- Middleton moved for a new trial (amended), arguing the hijacking and theft-by-receiving verdicts were mutually exclusive and therefore void; trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, ruling Middleton waived any challenge to the verdict forms by not objecting when rendered.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions: (1) whether a contemporaneous objection to the verdict form is required to raise mutually exclusive- verdicts on appeal, and (2) whether convictions for hijacking and theft by receiving the same vehicle are mutually exclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Middleton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant must object at the time the verdict is rendered to preserve a claim that convictions are mutually exclusive | No — mutually exclusive verdicts are void and may be raised later (e.g., in a motion for new trial) | Yes — failing to object to the form of the verdict at rendition waives challenges to inconsistent or irregular verdicts | Held: No contemporaneous objection is required; void (mutually exclusive) convictions may be challenged in a proper proceeding and are not waived by silence at verdict rendition |
| Meaning and effect of the word “retains” in OCGA § 16-8-7(a) (theft by receiving) | “Retains” adds nothing; post-1968 statute is essentially the same as pre-1968 receiving law | “Retains” means any knowing possession after the theft is sufficient, potentially allowing conviction of both taker and receiver | Held: “Retains” broadened the statute to criminalize continued possession after learning property is stolen (i.e., retention after gaining guilty knowledge), but it still presupposes someone else was the principal thief (it targets receivers, not principal takers) |
| Whether convictions for hijacking a motor vehicle and theft by receiving (by retaining) the same vehicle are mutually exclusive | Yes — theft-by-receiving (by retaining) requires that someone other than the defendant was the principal thief, so cannot coexist with a conviction that defendant obtained the vehicle by force (hijacking) | No — the State argued “retains” could attach to any knowing possession after theft, allowing both convictions based on retention after an initial taking | Held: Convictions are mutually exclusive and therefore void when entered on the same facts; the Court directed vacatur of the judgments and remand to set aside the two verdicts and for resentencing as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104 (discusses mutually exclusive verdicts and need for new trial where convictions cannot legally coexist)
- Nazario v. State, 293 Ga. 480 (void convictions can be challenged later; rejects waiver where verdicts are void)
- State v. Owens, 296 Ga. 205 (judgments on mutually exclusive verdicts are void; remedy is to reverse and remand)
- Springer v. State, 297 Ga. 376 (confirms that mutually exclusive verdicts cannot be accepted despite failure to object)
- Benchmark Builders v. Schultz, 289 Ga. 329 (a party does not waive an objection to a verdict that is void)
- DeLeon v. State, 289 Ga. 782 (earlier contrary precedent on waiver, tacitly overruled by later cases)
- Thomas v. State, 261 Ga. 854 (holds a defendant cannot be convicted both of stealing a car and of receiving the same car)
- Jackson v. State, 276 Ga. 408 (distinguishes inconsistent versus mutually exclusive verdicts)
- Curtis v. State, 275 Ga. 576 (merger and non-waiver principles for convictions that should merge)