Quiller v. the State
338 Ga. App. 206
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marcus Quiller was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, burglary, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; he appealed after denial of his amended motion for new trial.
- During preliminary jury instructions, the trial judge told jurors fingerprint evidence is "very hard to get" and "very seldom" appears at trial; Quiller did not object at trial to that comment.
- Quiller argued the judge’s statement improperly expressed an opinion on evidentiary facts in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 and required reversal.
- The legislature amended OCGA § 17-8-57 in 2015 to require a timely, specific objection to a judge’s comment and to preclude appellate review absent such an objection unless plain error affecting substantive rights is shown.
- The majority held subsection (b) of the 2015 amendment (governing appellate review and waiver) applies retroactively and reviewed the unobjected-to comment for plain error; it found no plain error given the State’s burden instruction and the evidence (lack of recoverable fingerprints and eyewitness/physical evidence placing Quiller at the scene).
- A dissent argued the 2015 amendment should not be applied retroactively to impose on Quiller an obligation that did not exist at trial and that under the pre‑amendment statute automatic reversal and a new trial were required for an express opinion on evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quiller) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge’s preliminary comment about fingerprints violated OCGA § 17-8-57 | The comment expressed the judge’s opinion on a factual matter (fingerprint evidence) and thus violated the statute requiring reversal | The comment was harmless given later correct instructions on burden and the trial evidence; any error should be reviewed for plain error because no timely objection was made | The comment was an improper statement of fact but, under plain‑error review, did not affect substantial rights or the outcome; no reversible error |
| Whether the 2015 amendment to OCGA § 17-8-57 (requiring timely objection and limiting review) applies retroactively to this appeal | Quiller relied on pre‑amendment automatic reversal rule (no duty to object) | State urged the amended provision, particularly subsection (b) governing appellate review, applies retroactively because it is procedural and governs appellate standards | The court applied subsection (b) retroactively for appellate review and therefore required plain‑error review of the unobjected‑to remark |
| Standard of appellate review when judge expresses opinion and defendant did not object at trial | Under former law, automatic reversal/new trial or treated as plain error per se | Under amended law, failure to object precludes review unless plain error affecting substantive rights is shown | Court applied modern plain‑error standard: error must be clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously affect fairness/integrity |
| Whether an expression of opinion as to guilt still mandates automatic new trial | Quiller argued broader protection should remain | State noted amended § 17-8-57(c) still mandates new trial when judge opines on guilt | Court noted subsection (c) remains and automatic reversal still applies when judge expresses opinion as to guilt; not implicated here |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyatt v. State, 298 Ga. 742 (2016) (discusses retroactivity of procedural appellate‑review changes and notes subsection (b) applies to appellate review)
- Morton v. State, 132 Ga. App. 329 (1974) (purpose of the statute is to keep the jury uninfluenced by judge’s opinion)
- Sales v. State, 296 Ga. 538 (2015) (statute applies to preliminary instructions)
- Carlson v. State, 329 Ga. App. 309 (2014) (plain‑error standard requires showing effect on outcome; harmless where evidence supports conviction and correct legal instruction given)
- Shaw v. State, 292 Ga. 871 (2013) (proof that outcome was not affected forecloses reversal under plain‑error review)
- Moore v. State, 286 Ga. App. 313 (2007) (improper remark followed by comprehensive correct charge can preclude reversal)
- Chumley v. State, 282 Ga. 855 (2008) (pre‑amendment OCGA § 17-8-57 mandated reversal even without objection)
- Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (2012) (same principle regarding mandatory reversal under former statute)
- Rouse v. State, 296 Ga. 213 (2014) (Supreme Court precedent that former § 17-8-57 violations mandate reversal)
- Gardner v. State, 286 Ga. 633 (2010) (violation of former § 17-8-57 constitutes plain error and is not waived by failure to object)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (retroactivity analysis: identify the relevant conduct the new rule regulates)
- Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54 (1988) (procedural statutes are generally given retroactive effect absent contrary intent)
- Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (2013) (retroactive application of statutes is disfavored absent clear legislative intent)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Ferrante, 281 Ga. 273 (2006) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural law for retroactivity)
- Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804 (2007) (substantive laws affect rights/duties and typically are not retroactive)