Patterson v. State
328 Ga. App. 111
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Patterson convicted of distribution of methamphetamine, possession of hydrocodone, and possession of marijuana; motion for new trial denied; appeals court affirms meth and marijuana convictions but reverses hydrocodone conviction.
- Informant Darcy Bennett worked with Agent Patterson to investigate co-indictee Michael Goode, making multiple drug buys to confirm Goode's drug sales.
- Goode arranged a February 22, 2010 meth purchase; Bennett witnessed Goode obtain methamphetamine from Patterson's location.
- Police recovered a hydrocodone pill from Patterson's home, along with marijuana paraphernalia; Patterson claimed he did not know the pill's contents.
- Patterson argued trial court intimidation of Goode, lack of trial counsel effectiveness, improper jury instructions on possession, and a late-emergency claim about a juror observing custody; these issues culminate in a partial reversal of the hydrocodone conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error from hydrocodone instruction | Patterson claims lack of knowledge defense due to Duvall II. | State asserts no error or waiver; trial instruction adequate. | Hydrocodone conviction reversed for plain error. |
| Intimidation of Goode and its impact | Goode coerced to testify; trial court biased. | Counsel failed to raise; no standing to challenge Goode's actions. | No plain error; lack of standing; issues addressed under ineffective assistance. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to raise intimidation | Counsel failed to object or impeach Goode’s credibility. | Counsel's cross-examination and strategy acceptable. | Court declines to reverse on this ground; Strickland analysis applied. |
| Failure to instruct on knowledge mens rea for hydrocodone | Duvall II requires knowledge of substance; defense of lack of knowledge. | No objection raised; plain error review applicable. | Plain error found; reversed hydrocodone conviction. |
| Juror seeing defendant in custody during trial | Foreman saw Patterson in street clothes during break; potential prejudice. | No substantial prejudice; voir dire and instructions adequate. | No reversible error; denial of new trial affirmed on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duvall v. State, 305 Ga. App. 545 (2010) (Duvall I; knowledge of substance identity as defense theme; error to deny instruction on mistake of fact)
- Duvall II, 289 Ga. 540 (2011) (Knowledge of chemical identity required; strict liability element clarified)
- Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (Plain-error test for structural trial errors in Georgia)
- Guajardo v. State, 290 Ga. 172 (2011) (Four-part plain-error test adoption in Georgia)
- Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605 (1991) (Reversible error for failure to give sole-defense charge)
- Page v. State, 250 Ga. App. 494 (2001) (Voir dire-related taint defense not cured by later events)