Paul v. State
331 Ga. App. 560
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- At ~5:00 a.m., Jernerick Paul entered an apartment; a resident found him in the living room, and Paul said a cat let him in before leaving.
- The resident discovered a one-dollar bill missing from his wallet; police arrived shortly thereafter and located Paul in the complex parking lot.
- Paul consented to a search; officers found a one-dollar bill in his pocket and multiple cell phones and cameras in his backpack. Victims identified Paul as the intruder.
- Paul had two prior burglary convictions; he testified he thought the apartment was vacant and he could rest there.
- Paul was convicted of burglary under the pre-2012 OCGA § 16-7-1(a) (entering a dwelling without authority with intent to commit theft or a felony).
- Paul appealed, challenging evidence admission, sufficiency of the evidence, trial counsel effectiveness, and the absence of a mistake-of-fact jury charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: evidence (eyewitness ID, stolen $1 recovered, items in backpack) supports burglary conviction | Paul: lacked intent to steal; he thought the apartment was vacant and entered to rest | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, jury could reject Paul’s testimony and infer intent; vacancy does not preclude burglary |
| Admission of items found at arrest (motion in limine) | State: items found with consent search shortly after arrest are admissible as circumstances of arrest | Paul: items irrelevant and suggested uncharged crimes; prosecutor later argued improperly | Affirmed — items admissible as arrest circumstances; trial court sustained objection during argument and gave curative instruction; Paul did not pursue further relief |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Paul: counsel failed to introduce bills/receipts to prove ownership of phones | State: even if deficient, no prejudice given overwhelming evidence of guilt | Affirmed — no reasonable probability of different outcome given eyewitness ID, admission of unauthorized entry, recovered $1, and priors |
| Failure to charge mistake of fact sua sponte | Paul: jury should have been instructed on mistake of fact (believed apartment vacant) | State: Paul’s claim was mistake of law, not fact; mistake-of-fact charge unwarranted | Affirmed — belief apartment was vacant is mistake of law (vacancy does not authorize entry); mistake-of-fact instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Stillwell v. State, 329 Ga. App. 108 (affirming standards for sufficiency review and mistake-of-fact principles)
- Earnest v. State, 216 Ga. App. 271 (vacant dwelling entry may still constitute burglary)
- Blackwell v. State, 274 Ga. App. 579 (items in defendant's control at arrest admissible as circumstances of arrest)
- Patel v. State, 279 Ga. 750 (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Durden v. State, 293 Ga. 89 (overwhelming evidence can negate prejudice prong of ineffective-assistance claim)