Rouzan v. State
308 Ga. 894
| Ga. | 2020Background:
- In August 2012 Joseph Williams, Jr. was shot and killed; Seth Rouzan was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, and a weapons enhancement; co-defendant Ronnie Pontoon (a minor) pleaded to a reduced charge and testified for the State.
- Rouzan’s defense: he went to the complex to buy marijuana, saw others discuss a robbery, and denied shooting Williams; Williams’ young son and Pontoon (who admitted selling the gun) provided key inculpatory testimony.
- The State introduced extensive “other acts” evidence of Rouzan’s involvement in a December 2006 robbery and homicide of Jeffrey LaBord (including Rouzan’s later guilty pleas), presenting a large portion of trial exhibits and testimony.
- At a pretrial “Similar Transaction Hearing” the trial court applied the Georgia Supreme Court’s old Williams three-part similar-transaction test and admitted the LaBord evidence; the hearings and trial occurred after the 2013 Evidence Code took effect.
- Rouzan was convicted and sentenced to life without parole; on appeal the State conceded the trial court applied the wrong legal test for admitting other-acts evidence; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for application of the current OCGA § 24-4-404(b) framework.
Issues:
| Issue | Rouzan’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard for admitting other-acts evidence | Trial court applied obsolete Williams similar-transaction test; must apply current OCGA § 24-4-404(b) test | Admission under Williams was proper; evidence showed intent/knowledge/motive | Court: trial court erred by using Williams; vacated and remanded for application of OCGA § 24-4-404(b) test |
| Relevance and prejudice of LaBord evidence (motive/knowledge/intent; § 24-4-403) | LaBord evidence was irrelevant to non-character purposes and overwhelmingly prejudicial/cumulative | Evidence showed intent/knowledge/motive for similar violent crimes | Court: under modern test some LaBord evidence might be relevant for intent but the volume could be excluded under § 24-4-403; error in admission not harmless |
| Failure to give accomplice corroboration instruction | Trial court failed to instruct that accomplice testimony requires corroboration (Pontoon was an accomplice) | (State conceded at oral argument that instruction should have been given) | Court noted State’s concession; did not resolve on merits because remand likely; issue can be raised again if convictions re-entered |
| Denial of continuance for motion-for-new-trial hearing based on counsel’s admitted unpreparedness | Trial court abused discretion in denying continuance for new-trial hearing | Trial court properly managed docket; denial was appropriate | Court declined to address because unlikely to recur on retrial; preserved for future appeal if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (1991) (articulated old similar-transaction three-part test)
- Worthen v. State, 306 Ga. 600 (2019) (sets § 24-4-404(b) three-part admission framework)
- Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95 (2016) (discusses proper application of § 24-4-404(b) and probative value analysis)
- Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472 (2018) (rejects overly generic propensity/motive arguments for other-acts evidence)
- Thompson v. State, 302 Ga. 533 (2017) (limits admissibility where similarities are common elements only)
- Brewner v. State, 302 Ga. 6 (2017) (permits other-acts evidence when same state of mind is required for both acts)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Moore v. State, 290 Ga. 805 (2012) (vacatur and remand is proper remedy for erroneous evidentiary rulings)
- Parker v. State, 296 Ga. 586 (2015) (directs remand when trial court’s order relies on erroneous evidentiary ruling)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (explains unfair prejudice concept and limits on admitting prior-bad-act evidence)