Nyron Thomas v. State
A21A0492
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Nyron Thomas was tried for offenses arising from a 2014 shooting that killed Shinnara Gee; the jury acquitted him of murder and convicted him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- On initial appeal the trial court had granted a new trial based on an erroneous jury instruction; this Court reversed that grant and remanded for the trial court to consider Thomas’s other new‑trial grounds. The trial court then denied those remaining grounds; Thomas appealed.
- Thomas’s sole claim on this appeal was that the trial court denied his constitutional right to be present by excluding him from three bench conferences: (1) a voir dire conference about excusing Juror No. 4; (2) a conference on admissibility of still images from surveillance video; and (3) a conference about admitting lineup evidence/identity issues.
- The trial record includes in‑court summaries of each bench conference (taken after the fact); Thomas did not object on the record to the jury selection or the later summaries, and counsel voiced no objection to the trial court’s rulings at issue.
- The Court analyzed whether each bench conference was a “critical stage” triggering the right to be present and whether Thomas waived or acquiesced in his absence.
- Held: the Court concluded Thomas either acquiesced to absence (voir dire conference) or the conferences involved purely legal admissibility rulings that do not implicate the right to be present (surveillance stills and lineup discussion), and therefore affirmed his convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Right to be present at bench conference during voir dire when Juror No. 4 was excused | Thomas: Excluded from a critical stage (juror removal) and entitled to presence; denial requires new trial | State/Trial Court: Thomas observed juror distress, saw counsel approach bench, heard court’s on‑the‑record summary, and raised no objection — he acquiesced | Court: Right attached, but Thomas acquiesced by remaining silent and not objecting; no reversal |
| 2. Right to be present for bench conference on admissibility of still images from surveillance video | Thomas: Absence from conference implicated his presence right | State/Trial Court: Conference was purely legal (admissibility) and thus not a critical stage; counsel raised the objection and trial court ruled on admissibility | Court: Admissibility conferences do not implicate the right to be present; claim rejected |
| 3. Right to be present for bench conference about lineup evidence/identity | Thomas: Bench conference discussed relevance of evidence and defenses, so critical stage requiring his presence (court had earlier agreed to "realtime" hearings) | State/Trial Court: Conference concerned admissibility of lineup evidence (legal issue) and both counsel had no objection; court apologized but explained purpose | Court: Conference was limited to admissibility; not a critical stage; absence did not violate right |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewner v. State, 302 Ga. 6 (2017) (right to be present at critical stages; distinction for legal bench conferences)
- Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813 (2016) (defendant may waive or acquiesce in absence; acquiescence requires knowledge)
- Fortson v. State, 272 Ga. 457 (2000) (definition of critical stage where rights, defenses, or privileges may be lost)
- Fordham v. State, 352 Ga. App. 520 (2019) (defendant acquiesced to exclusion where he observed juror issues and voiced no objection)
- Bernier v. State, 354 Ga. App. 339 (2020) (acquiescence where defendant saw jurors questioned and excused and did not object)
- State v. Thomas, 350 Ga. App. 763 (2019) (prior appeal reversing trial court’s grant of new trial on jury‑charge grounds)