State v. Cooper
324 Ga. App. 32
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Aug. 3, 2010, Robert and Ryan Blount made racial taunts at Cooper; a physical confrontation followed.
- Cooper’s relatives Lonell and Latrenia Walls came to assist; physical struggles ensued (punching, wrestling, a crow bar taken and used).
- Cooper struck Robert Blount on the leg with a crow bar; Lonell struck a Blount with fists; Latrenia picked up a crow bar and was involved in a struggle for it.
- Defendants moved for immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 (self-defense/defense of others); the State presented no evidence or cross-examination at the immunity hearing.
- Trial court granted immunity and denied the State’s motion to reopen the evidence; State appealed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: uncontroverted defense testimony supported reasonable belief of imminent death/great bodily injury and necessity of force; trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to reopen evidence absent a proffer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants proved entitlement to immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 | State: record lacks evidence supporting self-defense or defense-of-others | Defendants: uncontroverted testimony shows reasonable belief of imminent death/great bodily injury and necessary force | Held: Defendants met preponderance burden; immunity proper because evidence (uncorroborated by State) supported reasonable belief and necessity |
| Whether witness opinion testimony improperly invaded ultimate issue | State: defense testimony impermissibly opined on ultimate issue of justification | Defendants: testimony provided facts from which reasonable apprehension could be inferred | Held: Court found testimony admissible as factual basis for reasonable inference, not improper ultimate-opinion exclusion |
| Whether the trial court’s refusal to reopen evidence was an abuse of discretion | State: trial court should have reopened so victims could testify; prosecutor’s mistake warranted reopening | Defendants: State failed to present/test or proffer victim testimony; trial court properly exercised discretion | Held: No abuse of discretion; refusal affirmed because State made no proffer and initially chose not to present evidence |
| Whether defendants’ force was excessive relative to threat | State: response may have been excessive (cites cases where multiple stabbings/continued attacks not justified) | Defendants: force was limited and responsive to an ongoing violent attack and threats to kill | Held: Court concluded evidence could reasonably support that force used was necessary and not excessive; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hipp v. State, 293 Ga. 415 (2013) (defendant bears burden to show immunity by preponderance; court reviews evidence favorably to trial court)
- Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410 (2008) (procedural standard for immunity questions)
- Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441 (2013) (appellate review accepts trial court fact and credibility findings if supported)
- State v. Green, 289 Ga. 802 (2011) (sufficiency of evidence to support immunity under OCGA § 16-3-21)
- Melear v. State, 159 Ga. App. 574 (1981) (distinguishes inadmissible mere opinions from admissible facts from which apprehension may be inferred)
- State v. Yapo, 296 Ga. App. 158 (2009) (where prosecution presents no contrary testimony, immunity finding may be proper)
- Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439 (2012) (trial court discretion to reopen; lack of proffer precludes showing of harm)
- Tweedell v. State, 218 Ga. App. 518 (1995) (no abuse of discretion in refusing to reopen evidence after resting)
- State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98 (2009) (discretionary nature of reopening evidence noted; commentators may prefer reopening but not required)
- Harris v. State, 274 Ga. 422 (2001) (example where repeated/stabbing conduct was excessive and not justified)