URSULITA v. State
307 Ga. App. 735
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ursulita was convicted by a jury of first-degree arson and burglary, with a verdict of not guilty on criminal damage to property in the second degree.
- Evidence showed extensive property damage in Ontivelos's apartment, including a slashed weight bench, ripped smoke detector, damaged Xbox, a TV in the bathtub, slashed air mattresses and drywall, and items set on fire in an oven.
- Fire department investigators testified the oven fire was contained early but could have burned the apartment and possibly spread to others if not extinguished.
- Ursulita admitted in a police statement that she caused the damage, detailing entering Ontivelos's apartment through a patio door after breaking off a relationship and becoming upset about another girlfriend.
- Ursulita argued there was no evidence she lacked permission to be in the apartment for burglary, and challenged the arson charge on intent and foreseeability grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burglary lacks authority evidence | Ursulita argues she had permission to enter | State shows lack of authority via changed locks and uninvited entry through patio door | Evidence sufficient to show lack of authority and entry without permission |
| Arson elements—intent and foreseeability | State failed to prove intent to damage or foreseeability of harm | Ursulita contends no intent or foreseeability shown | Evidence supported intent to damage and foreseeability of danger to life |
| Hearsay via language conduit | Arson investigator's testimony based on translation should be excluded | Language-conduit rule permits testimony via translator | No reversible error; admissible under language-conduit rule and cross-examination available |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to inconsistent verdict | No ineffective assistance; no inconsistent verdict rule in Georgia | Denied; no error shown in counsel performance or verdict alignment |
| Inconsistent verdicts (burglary vs. criminal damage) | Verdit inconsistent and prejudicial | Georgia does not recognize inconsistent verdict rule | No error on this basis; verdicts affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 258 Ga. 25 (1988) (circumstantial evidence may prove lack of authority for burglary)
- Hug v. State, 205 Ga.App. 746 (1992) (withdrawn authorization demonstrated by changed locks)
- Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631 (2007) (defendant's access denial supports lack of authority to enter)
- Bearfield v. State, 305 Ga.App. 37 (2010) (unauthorized use of code to enter former employer's facility shows lack of authority)
- Smith v. State, 140 Ga.App. 200 (1976) (smoke damage as arson damage if other elements present)
- Lopez v. State, 281 Ga.App. 623 (2006) (language-conduit rule admissibility when translator used)
- Davis v. State, 281 Ga.App. 855 (2006) (confrontation clause addressed when declarant testifies)
- Snyder v. State, 201 Ga.App. 66 (1990) (ineffective assistance standard; Strickland applied)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)