Mosley v. the State
339 Ga. App. 480
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Demetrius Mosley convicted of rape and two counts of aggravated sodomy based on victim L.F.’s testimony; defense was consent.
- Jury deliberated across two days; at one point reported being deadlocked 9–3 on three counts and had agreed on one count.
- Trial court suggested an Allen charge was available but said it would not give it; instead sent jurors to lunch and asked them to discuss each other’s views when they returned.
- Jury returned unanimous verdicts roughly two and a half hours after the court’s communication; on polling each juror affirmed the verdict was free and voluntary.
- Mosley filed a motion for new trial asserting (1) the court’s communications coerced the jury and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied the motion, finding no deficient performance or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Mosley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court communications during deliberations were unduly coercive | Court’s statements encouraging unanimity and asking jurors to discuss minority views coerced dissenting jurors to abandon honest convictions | Remarks were a correct statement of law about unanimity, did not pressure jurors, and the totality of circumstances (post-remark deliberation time and polling) show no coercion | No reversible error; remarks not coercive and did not require reversal |
| Whether trial court erred by ruling ineffective-assistance claim without allowing Mosley to question trial counsel or present argument at motion hearing | Trial court prematurely ruled on the claim without permitting questioning/argument, violating Mosley’s rights at the hearing | Mosley had timely raised the claim in written motion but presented no evidence or argument at the hearing; omission appears inadvertent and fault lies with movant for not developing record | Court did not err in outcome; Mosley failed to present the claim at the hearing so denial stands |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting expert testimony that bolstered victim credibility | Trial counsel elicited state forensic psychologist’s statements implying belief in victim, improperly vouching for credibility and addressing ultimate issue | Counsel did not intentionally elicit that testimony; witness volunteered remarks about not being "tricked," which did not directly state belief; trial court cured any potential harm with an instruction to disregard vouching | No deficient performance or prejudice shown; testimony did not impermissibly address ultimate issue and jury instruction cured any possible harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (describes Allen charge encouraging jury unanimity)
- Riggins v. State, 226 Ga. 381 (trial-court remarks during deliberations must not coerce jury)
- Honester v. State, 336 Ga. App. 166 (pattern charge and limits on exhorting minority to defer to majority)
- Porter v. State, 278 Ga. 694 (coercion inquiry focuses on whether juror abandoned honest conviction for reasons other than deliberations)
- Drayton v. State, 297 Ga. 743 (permissible to instruct jury that any agreed verdict must be unanimous)
- Stillwell v. State, 294 Ga. App. 805 (opinion testimony as to witness credibility is impermissible; testimony about lack of deception does not necessarily bolster ultimate credibility)
- Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312 (ineffective-assistance standard: defendant must prove deficient performance and prejudice)