Nicely v. State
291 Ga. 788
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Nicely was convicted by a Hall County jury of murder of Tayore Wright, a one-year-old girl.
- Nicely contends his father was denied equal protection when excluded from parts of the trial under sequestration, while Tayore’s mother attended under a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights exemption.
- Grounds include equal protection, pretrial demurrer re aggravated assault, cross-examination limits of Dr. Gowitt, and conditioning of a requested jury instruction.
- Medical evidence included autopsy findings by Dr. Gowitt and forensic testimony by Dr. Greenbaum showing injuries inconsistent with a short fall and suggesting blunt force trauma or shaking.
- Nicely presented defense testimony from Tayore’s mother and his father, and expert testimony challenging the medical conclusions; the court affirmed the conviction, concluding the record supported a rational juror’s conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
- The crime occurred March 30, 2009; trial began December 6, 2010, with verdict December 15, 2010; judgment merged aggravated counts into a felony-murder conviction predicated on cruelty to a child, and Nicely was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge to sequestration exemption | Nicely’s father excluded while Tayore’s mother attended under exemption. | Differing treatment does not deny equal protection; rational relationship to legitimate state interests. | No equal protection violation; differential treatment rationally related to legitimate interests. |
| Harmless error from merger of aggravated assault into felony murder | Aggravated assault count lacked weapon specificity and defense preparation. | Merger rendered the aggravated assault error harmless. | Harmless error; merger precludes reversible error. |
| Limitation on cross-examining Dr. Gowitt | Should cross-examine about cross-examiners’ understandings influencing testimony. | Trial court exercised permissible discretion to limit marginally relevant cross-examination. | No abuse of discretion; limit upheld. |
| Charge on cruelty to a child as lesser included offense | Court should include cruelty in the second degree as a lesser included offense for felony murder. | Courts may condition such a charge on an additional predicate instruction. | Court could condition the lesser charge on the required predicate instruction; not error. |
| Standing to challenge equal protection on behalf of another | Nicely seeks to assert his father’s rights; alleged denial affects both. | Prudential standing limits assertion of rights of another; Tayore not similarly situated. | Prudential standing applies; Nicely’s equal protection claim fails on the standing/situational basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (equal protection scrutiny; rational basis generally unless suspect class or fundamental right)
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (public trials ensuring due process; not controlling on sequestration)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (public-trial requirements as due process element)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (confrontation and cross-examination rights constraints)
- Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (sequestration and limits on cross-examination; permissible limits)
- Fair v. State, 288 Ga. 244 (2010) (equal protection analysis for differential treatment; rational basis)
- Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283 (2002) (equal protection substantive framework in Georgia)
- Chance v. State, 291 Ga. 241 (2012) (inherently dangerous felonies for felony murder analysis)
- Purvis v. State, 288 Ga. 865 (2011) (public-trial/sequestration context; caution about conduct)
- State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1 (2010) (sequestration generally not implicating right to public trial)