Neverson v. State
324 Ga. App. 322
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Neverson was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during a crime.
- She appealed after the denial of a new trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court's failure to give a habitation-defense instruction, and ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel.
- The trial court applied the proper standard for the general-grounds challenge and denied it.
- On appeal, the court addressed constitutional sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia and viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- The evidence showed Stallings, a 17-year-old guest on Neverson’s porch, fought with Neverson’s boyfriend; Neverson retrieved a knife and stabbed Stallings, who died shortly after.
- The defense theory at trial was self-defense, which the jury could reject; witnesses described the stabbing and no weapon was found on Stallings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of the evidence support | Neverson argues the evidence is legally insufficient | State contends sufficient evidence supports verdict | Sufficient evidence established the crimes beyond reasonable doubt |
| Failure to give habitation-defense instruction plain error | Neverson argues trial court should have instructed on habitation defense | State contends no habitation defense warranted; not requested/argued | No plain error; habitation defense not applicable where victim on porch with permission and no unlawful entry/attack established |
| Effect of trial counsel on habitation instruction claim | Neverson asserts counsel failed to request/argue habitation charge | State asserts no deficient performance given lack of warranted habitation defense | Counsel not deficient; no error in not giving habitation charge |
| Effect of conviction merger and double jeopardy discussion | Affirmed; sentencing merger proper; standard distinctions explained |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimes v. State, 293 Ga. 559 (2013) (sufficiency standard applied; credibility resolved by jury)
- Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871 (2013) (self-defense considerations for jury to resolve)
- Fleming v. State, 324 Ga. App. 481 (2013) (plain-error framework applied)
- Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262 (2013) (distinguishes sufficiency vs. weight of evidence standards)
- Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383 (2011) (distinguishes sufficiency and discretionary standards; double jeopardy remark)
- White v. State, 293 Ga. 523 (2013) (discusses standards for general grounds review and sufficiency overlap)
- Choisnet v. State, 292 Ga. 860 (2013) (review of general-grounds challenges under discretionary standard)
- Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506 (2013) (cites standard applications in trial review)