Murphy v. State
299 Ga. 238
| Ga. | 2016Background
- In 2007 a fire at a motel killed five people; Sheree Murphy was charged and, after a 2011 jury trial, convicted of five counts of felony murder, arson, aggravated battery, and cruelty to a child and sentenced to consecutive life terms.
- State evidence: eyewitness statements tying Murphy to threats and presence at the motel, store surveillance of a person matching her entering where lighter fluid was sold, trained dogs and lab tests detecting petroleum distillates on mattresses and concrete, and fire experts opining the fire was human-set in the mattresses and could spread to the second floor.
- Defense theory: fire originated on the second floor or in the attic and the petroleum distillate results could be explained by other products (pesticide, charcoal lighter fluid); Murphy denied setting the fire and offered an expert who agreed some transformation of chemicals is possible.
- Procedural claims on appeal: (1) denial of the right to be present at bench conferences during voir dire, (2) State failed to disclose an expert opinion about chemical transformation under OCGA § 17-16-4(a)(4), (3) admission of certain photographs and a 911 recording, (4) juror misconduct/coercion during deliberations (lighter demonstration; juror changed vote to go home).
- Trial court denied a new trial; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be present at bench conferences during voir dire | Murphy argued she was denied constitutional right to be present for critical stages when bench conferences occurred without her ability to hear/participate. | State argued conferences were permissible and that any absence was acquiesced to. | Court held Murphy acquiesced (was present for announcements, heard rulings, made no objection), so no violation. |
| Failure to disclose expert opinion under OCGA § 17-16-4(a)(4) | Murphy claimed Dr. Najam’s opinion (light petroleum can transform to medium under heat) was not timely disclosed and thus inadmissible. | State argued the opinion was elicited as a permissible hypothetical and no prejudice resulted. | Court held State should have disclosed but Murphy failed to show prejudice; expert testimony admissible. |
| Admission of photographs and 911 recording | Murphy argued these items were unduly prejudicial. | State argued items were relevant to origin of fire and cause of death (smoke inhalation). | Court held items were relevant and probative; not unduly prejudicial, so admissible. |
| Juror misconduct / coercion during deliberations | Murphy argued a juror’s lighter demonstration and another juror’s coerced vote required a new trial. | State argued juror demonstration was experience-based (not extrajudicial evidence) and the court properly addressed juror’s request to be excused; no coercion. | Court held lighter demonstration did not introduce prohibited extrajudicial evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying juror’s removal and no coercion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to be present and to self-representation principles)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages)
- Ward v. State, 288 Ga. 641 (waiver/acquiescence of right to be present)
- Zamora v. State, 291 Ga. 512 (presence required at bench conferences discussing juror removal)
- O’Donnell v. Smith, 294 Ga. 307 (when juror affidavits may impeach a verdict for extrajudicial evidence)
- Riggins v. State, 226 Ga. 381 (jury coercion by court re-charge)