Rowland v. State
306 Ga. 59
Ga.2019Background
- Rowland, a drug user, shot and killed Mike Whittle on Sept. 19, 2013; forensic evidence suggested Whittle was shot low and near the truck tailgate, contradicting Rowland’s close-range self‑defense account.
- Rowland admitted shooting Whittle but claimed self‑defense, asserting fear that Whittle (and others) suspected him of being an informant.
- Rowland was arrested ~1.5 hours after an unrelated collision; he invoked Miranda rights at the scene but later submitted two custodial statements after asking to speak with Investigator Scarborough.
- Trial (Feb. 2016) produced a felony‑murder conviction; Rowland appealed claiming multiple evidentiary and charge errors.
- The trial court held Jackson‑Denno hearings, admitted the statements, denied several defense motions (redactions and certain prior‑acts evidence), and used a standard verdict form and pattern reasonable‑doubt charge.
Issues
| Issue | Rowland's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Sept. 19 custodial statement (post‑invocation initiation) | Statement involuntary: Rowland wasn’t re‑advised of Miranda and was intoxicated | Rowland reinitiated contact, was reminded he had invoked counsel earlier, appeared lucid, and knowingly waived rights | Affirmed: waiver knowing and voluntary under totality of circumstances; interview admissible |
| Redaction of Sept. 23 statement re: failure to call 911 / pre‑arrest silence (Mallory) | Mallory bars comment on pre‑arrest silence; court should redact references | Evidence of flight and failure to seek help is admissible circumstantial evidence of guilt; trial court found voluntariness | Even if admission erred under Mallory, error harmless given limited use and overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Exclusion of proffered evidence that Whittle once solicited Rowland to kill Whittle’s son | Evidence relevant to self‑defense motive and perceived threat | Proffered incident was remote, marginal, and improper propensity evidence | Affirmed exclusion (or, at least, any error harmless because evidence was cumulative and marginal) |
| Use of the word “victim” by prosecution | Term prejudicial and inconsistent with self‑defense theory (no victim if justified) | The issue of whether deceased was a victim was for jury; word not inherently prejudicial | Denial of motion in limine not reversible error; jury properly instructed on self‑defense |
| Verdict form listing “Guilty” before “Not Guilty” | Form undermines presumption of innocence; order should be reversed | Jury instructions properly explained presumption and burden; order on form not misleading | No error: form read with proper instructions does not erode presumption (Rucker followed) |
| Reasonable‑doubt jury charge language (“not required to prove ... beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty”) | Phrase could mislead and diminish burden of proof | Pattern charge as whole correctly stated burden; isolated wording not reversible | No reversible error: charge as a whole accurate (court previously rejected similar challenge) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda warnings and custodial‑interrogation framework)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (plurality discussion on reinitiation of contact and waiver after invocation)
- Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 (1991) (bright‑line rule excluding comment on pre‑arrest silence)
- State v. Orr, 827 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. 2019) (Georgia Evidence Code abrogated Mallory’s categorical rule; requires case‑specific analysis of pre‑arrest silence evidence)
- Mack v. State, 296 Ga. 239 (discussing initiation of contact and waiver analysis)