Pullen v. State
315 Ga. App. 125
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Pullen was convicted of robbery by force and theft by taking; acquitted of possession of a firearm during a crime.
- The underlying incident involved a home invasion on October 5, 2007, where Denson was attacked and items stolen, including Denson's Cavalier.
- Denson identified Pullen as involved; Pullen admitted signing the car title and claimed involvement by others in the events.
- Evidence included Denson’s testimony, Pullen’s signature on the title, and phone records showing a call to Pullen’s aunt’s number.
- A police investigator testified about two non-testifying witnesses’ identifications from a photographic lineup; defense objected on hearsay grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leading questions and confrontation | State argues Walker's testimony, though eliciting leading questions, was harmless given other evidence. | Pullen contends the State violated Confrontation Clause by leading questions to a reluctant witness. | Harmless error; cumulative evidence supported verdict. |
| Admission of third-party identifications | Identification testimony from two non-testifying witnesses identified Pullen in a lineup. | Such testimony is improper hearsay and violates confrontation rights. | Not reversible; trial court’s handling limited reviewable error. |
| Jury instruction on impeachment | No error or abuse of discretion in impeachment instruction; context showed no improper urging of belief. | Impeachment charge tailored to defendant implied the judge’s belief about guilt. | No reversible error; instruction viewed in context did not convey the judge’s opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 445 (Ga. 2012) (confrontation-review framework for harmless-error assessment)
- Collum v. State, 281 Ga. 719 (Ga. 2007) (Deliberations on Harms of Confrontation Clause and harmless error)
- Parker v. State, 276 Ga. 598 (Ga. 2003) (impeachment instructions; avoidance of impressionistic error)
- Pena v. State, 247 Ga. App. 211 (Ga. App. 2000) (timely objection and mistrial consideration in appellate review)
- Ardis v. State, 290 Ga. 58 (Ga. 2011) (confrontation-related identification and corroboration considerations)
- Laye v. State, 312 Ga. App. 862 (Ga. App. 2011) (impeachment and corroboration standards in Georgia appellate review)