Tarpley v. State
298 Ga. 442
Ga.2016Background
- In early morning Feb. 9, 2006, Earnest Estes was found shot to death in his Caldwell, GA home; his nephew Hoke Smith Tarpley was identified by family and gave a statement admitting he shot Estes with a 12‑gauge through a front‑window after an altercation.
- Tarpley claimed Estes had assaulted and threatened him, choked him, placed a cocked gun to his head, and later pursued/shot at him; Tarpley left, retrieved a shotgun from his house (about 132 yards away), returned, and fired through the window.
- Evidence contradicted aspects of Tarpley’s story: Estes’s revolver was found holstered and unloaded on a coffee table, there was no sign of a struggle at Estes’s residence, and exterior lighting would have hampered Estes’s ability to see Tarpley in the yard.
- A jury convicted Tarpley of malice murder and felony murder; he was sentenced to life for malice murder and appealed, raising evidentiary, instructional, discovery‑remedy, and ineffective‑assistance claims.
- The trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts, declined certain jury instructions, remedied but did not exclude testimony after reciprocal discovery violations, and refused to reopen evidence for post‑trial photos; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tarpley) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of victim's prior violent acts to support justification/self‑defense | Tarpley sought to admit prior violent acts to show justification and that victim was aggressor | Evidence rules require procedural compliance, competent proof of acts, and a prima facie showing of justification (victim aggressor, assaulted defendant, defendant honestly defending) | Trial court did not abuse discretion: Tarpley failed to make a prima facie showing because he left, retrieved a shotgun, and sought out Estes before shooting |
| Request for voluntary manslaughter instruction | Fear of danger and provocation supported a voluntary manslaughter charge (passion may arise from fear) | Voluntary manslaughter requires passion causing an impassioned reaction distinct from an attempt to defend oneself; defendant’s statements showed fear/defense not passion | No voluntary manslaughter charge warranted; evidence showed attempted self‑defense/fear, not passion |
| Use of the word “imminent” in no‑duty‑to‑retreat instruction | Adding “imminent” improperly narrows law and may confuse jury; deviates from pattern language | Charge substantially tracked pattern instructions and correctly stated legal principle; inclusion of “imminent” did not create reversible error | No error; instruction substantially covered applicable law and was unlikely to confuse jurors |
| Missing‑evidence jury charge claim | Investigation ignored and failed to produce numerous pieces of evidence warranting a missing‑evidence instruction | Appellant offered no developed argument or authority for the claim; claim is bare and therefore abandoned | Claim forfeited/abandoned for lack of argument and authority |
| Reciprocal discovery violation (medical examiner/autopsy/GSR) and remedy | State failed to list medical examiner, did not timely provide autopsy report; prejudice by preventing impeachment and timely testing disclosure | Trial court allowed interviews, continuance for GSR testing, additional witnesses and voir dire; exclusion is a harsh remedy requiring prejudice and bad faith | No abuse of discretion: trial court’s remedial measures sufficed and Tarpley failed to show prejudice or State bad faith |
| Refusal to reopen evidence for defense photos; ineffective assistance claim | Trial court should have reopened to admit photos of exterior lighting; counsel ineffective for not producing photos earlier | Photos taken during trial, not provided to State, sought after close; photos were cumulative and would not have changed outcome | No abuse of discretion to refuse reopening; no ineffective‑assistance prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard)
- Austin v. State, 268 Ga. 602 (character of victim generally not admissible in murder trial)
- Chandler v. State, 261 Ga. 402 (prior victim acts may be admissible when justification claimed)
- Laster v. State, 268 Ga. 172 (procedural and prima facie requirements to admit victim’s prior violent acts)
- Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 316 (standard of review for admitting evidence relating to justification)
- Shackelford v. State, 270 Ga. App. 12 (exclusion of victim‑prior‑acts evidence where defendant escaped and then sought weapon)
- Browning v. State, 283 Ga. 528 (distinguishing provocation for voluntary manslaughter from self‑defense)
- Worthem v. State, 270 Ga. 469 (no voluntary manslaughter charge when defendant’s statement shows lack of passion)
- Keita v. State, 285 Ga. 767 (charges need not use defendant’s exact requested language if law is substantially covered)
- Brown v. State, 281 Ga. App. 557 (remedies for reciprocal discovery violations)
- Higuera–Hernandez v. State, 289 Ga. 553 (exclusion is harsh sanction requiring prejudice and bad faith)
- Norris v. State, 289 Ga. 154 (remedies like continuance and interviews address discovery lapses)
- Carruth v. State, 267 Ga. 221 (discretion to reopen evidence is trial court decision)
- Terry v. State, 284 Ga. 119 (Strickland standards for ineffective assistance)
- Rector v. State, 285 Ga. 714 (failure to prove one Strickland prong obviates need to address the other)