Pena v. State, 297 Ga. 418

Pena was convicted of malice murder and related offenses in Gwinnett County and appealed an amended motion for new trial.
The offense occurred around 3:30 a.m. on November 4, 2007; Pena and another man were observed with Pena’s bloodied jeans and boots, claiming he fought a friend.
The victim, Jose David Cruz Hernandez, was found face down in a drainage ditch with extensive head injuries and DNA from Pena’s jeans and boots matched the victim’s blood.
Pena gave a police interview describing the events, including striking and kicking the victim multiple times, and indicating prior difficulties with the victim.
The trial court denied suppression of Pena’s custodial statement, and the defense challenged evidentiary rulings and the jury instruction on justification; Pena also challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness.
The Court affirmed, holding the evidence sufficient, the juror was not properly struck for cause, custodial statement admissible, sister’s testimony excluded as hearsay, and the justification instruction (including “spirit of revenge”) did not warrant reversal or ineffective assistance finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for malice murder	Pena argues insufficient evidence	State contends strong evidence supports conviction	Evidence supports verdict beyond reasonable doubt
Denied strike for cause of Juror 25	Juror biased against Pena	Juror remained capable of impartial deliberation	No manifest abuse of discretion; juror not fixed against guilt
Admissibility of custodial statement	Spanish Miranda warnings were inadequate	Totality of circumstances showed valid waiver	Waiver valid; statement voluntary and admissible
Exclusion of sister’s testimony	Sister’s statements would show victim caused injuries	Hearsay; defendant not testifying to support said statements	No abuse of discretion; statements inadmissible hearsay without defendant’s testimony
Jury instruction on self-defense/justification (spirit of revenge) and counsel effectiveness	Instruction wrongly added burden of revenge	Instruction accurately stated law; no error	Instruction correct; waiver and ineffective-assistance claim fail

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence)
White v. State, 287 Ga. 713 (2010) (credibility and self-defense questions for jury)
Chester v. State, 267 Ga. 9 (1996) (battered person syndrome as defense component)
Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (2015) (discusses Jackson-Denno evidentiary review framework)
Delacruz v. State, 280 Ga. 392 (2006) (Miranda waiver depends on totality of the circumstances)
Parker v. State, 276 Ga. 598 (2003) (hearsay rules; defendant must testify for certain statements)
Teems v. State, 256 Ga. 675 (1987) (validity of self-defense justification instruction)
Brooks v. State, 227 Ga. 339 (1971) (comparison of old and new laws on justification)
Grimes v. State, 296 Ga. 337 (2014) (standard for reviewing trial court rulings on voir dire)
Cade v. State, 289 Ga. 805 (2011) (limits on trial court discretion in jury instruction)