Thomas v. State
296 Ga. 485
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Appellant Bobby Gene Thomas was tried and convicted as a party to malice murder and related offenses arising from a convenience-store armed robbery in January 2006; he was sentenced to life and additional terms; convictions affirmed on appeal.
- Surveillance videos showed two hooded men in the store shortly before the robbery; Thomas was identified by clothing, conduct on video, and a witness who saw him exit a two-toned Cadillac and enter the store first.
- During the robbery, Scott produced a gun, fired two shots (one victim later died), and Thomas is heard on the tape allegedly urging Scott to hurry; Thomas is also visible near the door and later fled the scene.
- Forensic testing recovered Thomas’s palm print on the passenger rear door of the Cadillac. He was later apprehended after officers sought him at a nearby apartment.
- Thomas argued insufficiency of the evidence to prove he was a party to the crimes, objected to a prosecutor voir dire question as prejudicial, and preserved objections to a witness’s testimony about the victim’s mental capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Thomas as a party | Evidence (video, audio, witness ID, palm print, conduct before/during/after) supports inference of shared criminal intent | Only proves presence in car and store; denies audio shows him urging shooter; claims mere presence insufficient for party liability | Affirmed: jury could infer shared criminal intent from conduct and evidence; Jackson v. Virginia standard met |
| Prosecutor’s voir dire question on whether an aider should be prosecuted | Question sought to detect juror prejudice against prosecuting accomplices | Question invited prejudgment and planted guilt in jurors | Held proper: trial court did not abuse discretion; question reasonably probed juror prejudice |
| Testimony about victim’s mental capacity and alleged failure to qualify witness | State argued lay witness could testify about victim’s familiarity and characteristics | Thomas argued such testimony required expert and was prejudicial; objected pretrial | Not preserved for appeal: trial court reserved ruling; defense failed to renew contemporaneous objection, so issue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review — whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109 (2012) (scope of permissible voir dire and line between probing prejudice and impermissible hypothetical prejudgment)
- Lowe v. State, 295 Ga. 623 (2014) (appellate deference to jury on hypotheses and factual conclusions)
- Eckman v. State, 274 Ga. 63 (2001) (shared criminal intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after crime)
- Dasher v. State, 285 Ga. 308 (2009) (failure to renew contemporaneous objection waives appellate review)
- Gill v. State, 295 Ga. 705 (2014) (deference to jury on credibility and identification issues)