State v. Hobbs
288 Ga. 551
| Ga. | 2010Background
- Hobbs was convicted in Oct. 2005 of crimes related to sexual abuse of his daughter.
- Two witnesses testified to Hobbs's good character, prompting a timely request for the pattern good-character jury charge.
- The trial court gave a good-character charge but did not give the requested pattern charge.
- Court of Appeals held the charge deficient and reversible error; this Court granted certiorari to review.
- The Supreme Court held the trial court's charge was insufficient because it failed to explain the role and substantive nature of good character in deliberations; judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.
- A dissent argued the trial court's charge was proper under Sapp and that the majority was creating new law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly charged on good character under Sapp. | Hobbs argued the pattern charge should have been given. | State contends the court could use a permissible non-pattern charge. | Charge was deficient under Sapp and improper. |
| Whether the error was prejudicial requiring a new trial. | Hobbs asserted trial error warranted reversal per appellate ruling. | State argued error, if any, was harmless given evidence. | Error prejudicial; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapp v. State, 271 Ga. 446 (1999) (good character is substantive and may create reasonable doubt; jury may consider it in deliberations)
- Duvall v. State, 259 Ga. 801 (1990) (good character is substantive; must be explained as part of deliberations)
- Kettman v. State, 257 Ga. 603 (1987) (good character may itself create reasonable doubt; pattern instruction acceptable)
- Nunnally v. State, 235 Ga. 693 (1975) (good character may be sufficient to create reasonable doubt; proper charge)
- Phillips v. State, 171 Ga.App. 827 (1984) (commentary on good character instructions)
- Morrow v. State, 166 Ga.App. 883 (1983) (good character may create reasonable doubt even with other evidence)
- Stewart v. State, 286 Ga. 669 (2010) (pattern-charge flexibility; substantial coverage acceptable)
- Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528 (2006) (no requirement that only verbatim pattern charges are permissible)
- Cox v. State, 279 Ga. 223 (2005) (credibility and weight left to jury; charge need not be verbatim)