Rogers v. State, 290 Ga. 401

Background

Appellant Eric Rogers was indicted for malice and felony murders of Birmingham and Patterson; felony murder verdicts later vacated by operation of law; he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms for malice murder after jury verdicts on all counts.
Evidence showed sexual conduct with young victims over years starting when Rogers was a teen; Probst testified to witnessing acts with Birmingham and Rogers burying Birmingham’s body in DeKalb woods; Patterson disappeared and was murdered in Atlanta/DeKalb context; Patterson’s body was never found.
Patterson was last seen alive in DeKalb County; Rogers confessed to Patterson’s murder in Mississippi and to Birmingham’s murder in Georgia; Probst aided police in locating the Birmingham burial site.
A Mississippi custodial interview produced a statement from Rogers; Patterson’s murder venue involved DeKalb County through statements that the crime could have been committed there; the corpus delicti for Patterson’s murder could be established with corroborating evidence.
Testimony included prior sexual misconduct evidence (similar transactions and prior difficulties) with young victims; trial court admitted it for pattern of conduct and nexus; some challenges were preserved/waived on appeal.
Jury deliberated about four hours, requested rehearing testimony; court allowed rehearing that evening due to court holiday; defense did not object; issue is deemed waived and verdict not coerced.
Foundations of ineffective assistance claims were largely waived or not proven; severance/photographs issues raised but not properly preserved; appellate counsel issues discussed with no reversible error established.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue for Patterson murder	Patterson’s murder venue cannot be determined; venue proper where evidence shows might have been committed.	OCGA 17-2-2(h) allows venue in a county where it might have been committed; evidence supports DeKalb.	Venue properly shown; evidence sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to permit DeKalb as potential venue.
Corroboration of confession	Confession to Husband insufficient unless corroborated by separate evidence.	Confession is high-quality evidence and corroboration not required for every element; corpus delicti established.	Confession sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence; corpus delicti established.
Admission of sexual misconduct evidence	Similar transaction and prior difficulties evidence admissible to show pattern of conduct.	Evidence too remote and prejudicial; grounds preserved; not necessary for proof.	Evidence admissible for pattern of behavior; remoteness and preservation issues addressed; not reversible error.
Prosecutorial misconduct re right to remain silent	State violated trial court’s ruling by commenting on or ignoring silence during custodial interrogation.	No proper preservation; assertion of silence during questioning not an invocation; permissible under authorities.	No reversible prosecutorial error; rule on preservation and invocation applied; contention meritless.
Jury rehearing/possible coercion	Court pressured jury to decide quickly by delaying rehearing of testimony.	No objection; actions not coercive; no coercion shown under totality of circumstances.	No reversible error; verdict not coerced.

Key Cases Cited

Hinton v. State, 280 Ga. 811 (Ga. 2006) (venue and evidence standards in homicide cases; corroboration and venue analysis)
Moore v. State, 285 Ga. 157 (Ga. 2009) (confession corroboration; corpus delicti considerations)
Richardson v. State, 276 Ga. 548 (Ga. 2003) (corpus delicti and corroborating evidence principles)
Gilder v. State, 219 Ga. 495 (Ga. 1963) (corpus delicti and corroboration framework in murder cases)
Carswell v. State, 268 Ga. 531 (Ga. 1997) (confession corroboration standard; corpus delicti interpretation)
Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 (Ga. 1991) (silence during custodial interrogation; invocation of rights)
Perez v. State, 283 Ga. 196 (Ga. 2008) ( Miranda rights and silence delineation in custodial questioning)
United States v. Mikell, 102 F.3d 470 (11th Cir. 1996) (federal perspective on selective responses during interrogation)
State v. Fluker, 123 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2010) (distinguishing between invoking right to silence and selective answering)