Thornton v. State
307 Ga. 121
| Ga. | 2019Background
- Jonathan Brady was shot and killed on Sept. 11, 2014; Roderick Thornton (a convicted felon and competing drug dealer) was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and multiple firearm offenses and convicted after an October 2015 trial.
- At the scene: Brady sat in his car near a motel/gas station; Tariq Harris leaned into the front driver-side window, Thornton approached the rear driver-side window, a gunshot occurred, and Brady crashed and later died from a .45-caliber wound; a .45 shell casing was recovered near the motel and a 9mm was recovered from Brady’s car (not matching the fatal bullet).
- Surveillance video (grainy, no audio) showed three men approach the car; Harris and Henderson identified themselves and Thornton in the video; eyewitnesses initially told police they did not see the shooter at trial but identified positions on the video.
- Thornton did not testify; defense theory at trial was that Harris, not Thornton, fired the fatal shot. The lead detective testified (on direct) that Thornton was the only person in a position to shoot through the rear driver-side window; on cross, defense elicited that the detective initially thought Harris was the shooter but later became 100% sure Thornton was the shooter.
- Defense counsel withdrew the request for an accomplice-corroboration instruction and did not object to the aggravated-assault instruction; Thornton filed a motion for new trial, had an evidentiary hearing, which was denied, and appealed; Thornton’s sufficiency challenge was not pressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Thornton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in aggravated-assault instruction | Instruction was erroneous and led to improper conviction/ felony-murder finding | Any error is moot because Thornton was not convicted/sentenced for aggravated assault or felony murder | Moot — no relief (aggravated-assault/felony-murder counts vacated/merged) |
| Whether trial court failed to instruct jury on witness motives (leniency/immunity) | Requested pattern charge on witness motives was omitted | Record shows the court did give the pattern witness-motives charge | No error — charge was given |
| Whether trial court should have given accomplice-corroboration instruction (OCGA § 24-14-8) | Failure to instruct was plain error because Harris may have been accomplice | No evidence that any witness was an accomplice who shared common criminal intent with Thornton; defense withdrew request | No error — corroboration charge not warranted because no evidence of accomplice status |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting detective’s opinion that Thornton was the shooter | Counsel’s cross elicited an impermissible opinion on ultimate issue and aided prosecution | Under the Georgia Evidence Code, lay opinion on ultimate issue is admissible if rationally based and helpful; elicitation was strategic to undermine detective’s credibility (he initially thought Harris was shooter) | No ineffective assistance — elicitation admissible and strategic; counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-the-evidence review standard)
- Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (jury credibility determinations; conflicts resolved by jury)
- Hood v. State, 303 Ga. 420 (plain-error standard for jury-charge issues)
- Stripling v. State, 304 Ga. 131 (accomplice definition; instruction required only if slight evidence supports it)
- Walter v. State, 304 Ga. 760 (no accomplice instruction where no evidence of shared criminal intent)
- Atkinson v. State, 301 Ga. 518 (sentencing/merger principles for firearm counts)
- Fisher v. State, 299 Ga. 478 (ineffective assistance where accomplice-corroboration charge clearly authorized)
- Grier v. State, 305 Ga. 882 (lay-opinion/ultimate-issue analysis under new Evidence Code)
- Davis v. State, 299 Ga. 180 (admonition to apply the new Evidence Code)
- Brown v. State, 302 Ga. 454 (standard for assessing counsel performance and strategic decisions)
- Barnes v. State, 305 Ga. 18 (no deficiency for requesting a charge unsupported by evidence)
- Lupoe v. State, 284 Ga. 576 (strategic cross-examination choices do not ordinarily constitute ineffective assistance)
- Johnson v. State, 302 Ga. 774 (mootness where challenged instruction did not affect final convictions)
- Hickman v. State, 299 Ga. 267 (similar mootness principle)