Patterson v. State
327 Ga. App. 695
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Patterson was convicted of aggravated battery for setting his girlfriend on fire; he was acquitted of attempted murder.
- Victim testified Patterson poured alcohol on her, threw a lighter, and she ‘‘went up in flames’’; she suffered third-degree burns over ~40–45% of her body and permanent scarring and loss of function in her right hand.
- Friend corroborated hearing Patterson shout, then finding the victim on fire and Patterson saying “I didn’t mean it. I’m sorry.” Emergency services responded; police recovered an alcohol bottle with squeeze/fingerprint impressions; no crack pipe was found.
- Patterson told police the fire was an accident caused by the victim cleaning a crack pipe; the victim initially told hospital staff a similar account but later told police Patterson set her on fire. Victim admitted long-term daily crack use.
- After denial of a new-trial motion, Patterson appealed alleging (1) insufficient evidence, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) improper opinion testimony on intent, and (4) trial-court error in denying mistrial for juror/bailiff contacts; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated battery | Evidence was insufficient to prove he intentionally caused serious disfigurement/use loss | Victim’s live testimony, corroboration, and physical evidence support conviction | Affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson standard |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to victim’s remark about his recent incarceration; limited prep time; failed to call requested witnesses | Trial strategy (not objecting) was reasonable; claims lacking record support and treated as abandoned | Affirmed: no deficient performance shown; abandoned/unsupported claims rejected |
| Admission of opinion testimony re intent | Victim and officer testified that the act was intentional, invading the jury’s province | Victim personally observed the event; officer relayed victim’s out‑of‑court statement, not his own ultimate‑issue opinion | Affirmed: victim’s impressions admissible; officer’s testimony was hearsay about victim’s statement, not opinion on ultimate issue |
| Mistrial for juror/bailiff contacts | Bailiff repeatedly conversed with jurors during deliberations — required mistrial | Appellant failed to identify specific juror, conduct, or cite authority; argument unsupported | Affirmed: claim deemed abandoned for lack of argument and record citation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Stephens v. State, 247 Ga. App. 719 (application of Jackson standard on appeal)
- Morgan v. State, 195 Ga. App. 52 (credibility for the jury; viewing evidence for prosecution)
- Chamblee v. State, 319 Ga. App. 484 (inconsistencies in victim statements affect credibility, not sufficiency)
- Pruitt v. State, 282 Ga. 30 (two‑prong Strickland ineffective assistance standard)
- Durham v. State, 292 Ga. 239 (reasonable trial strategy to avoid objections that would highlight testimony)
- Smith v. State, 290 Ga. 428 (witness who observed events may testify to impressions and opinions based on those observations)
- Resource Life Ins. Co. v. Buckner, 304 Ga. App. 719 (appellate briefing obligations; burden to show error in record)