Robinson v. State
312 Ga. App. 736
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Robinson and Rogers were indicted in Georgia for conspiracy to commit theft by receiving stolen property and twelve counts of theft by receiving stolen property; convictions followed.
- Evidence tied the scheme to Park Central and South Stone Mountain warehouses, a Vibez clothing store, and Robin Express trucking; Park Central housed documents linking the entities and Robinson as in charge.
- Witness Deb Wright testified to brokered deals, Park Central office presence, and Robinson and Rogers’ involvement in buying and selling stolen goods; some stolen items matched those found at multiple locations.
- Robinson and Rogers fled a joint trial in 2005; later they were tried together in December 2008 after their flight and identity changes.
- Robinson challenged sufficiency, new-trial, ineffective assistance, suppression, mistrial, venue instruction, and impeachment; the court remanded on the admissibility balancing of a prior conviction, and affirmed Rogers on his issues.
- Key trial rulings involved suppression of evidence from warehouses, plain-view seizure at Vibez, jury instructions on venue and deliberate ignorance, and admission of prior bail-jumping conviction for impeachment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Counts 4, 7, 18 | Robinson contends no non-hearsay proof for key elements. | Robinson argues lack of evidence for ownership/locations and value. | Evidence sufficient; location and value shown by testimony; ownership element not required. |
| Motion for new trial denial | Robinson contends the verdict was against the weight of evidence and justice. | State contends discretion of trial court; no abuse shown. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence supports verdict. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Robinson claims multiple deficiencies, including severance and jury-venue error. | Robinson failed to show prejudice from counsel's actions. | No reversible ineffectiveness; alleged issues failed to show prejudice; contexts analyzed on merits. |
| Admissibility of 1984 bail-jumping conviction | Balancing test not properly applied; conviction improperly admitted. | Conviction admissible under balancing; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Remand to enter express balancing findings; if inadmissible, new trial required; if admissible, no automatic new trial. |
| Rogers—similar transaction evidence | State's admission of similar-transaction evidence supported by Williams framework. | Challenged admissibility and related defenses (conflict, recusal, flight, continuance). | Admissible for common-scheme/modus operandi; other challenges rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: whether evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Bearden v. State, 159 Ga.App. 892, 285 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. App. 1981) (limits on error when considering impeachment evidence)
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 409 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1991) (three affirmative showings for admissibility of similar-transaction evidence (USCR 31.3(B)))
- Miller v. State, 298 Ga.App. 792, 681 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. App. 2009) (express findings required for balancing of prior-conviction evidence)
- Quiroz v. State, 291 Ga.App. 423, 662 S.E.2d 235 (Ga. App. 2008) (factors for balancing probative value of prior convictions)