Venturino v. State
306 Ga. 391
Ga.2019Background
- On June 30, 2013 Marcos Cruz was shot twice while seated in the front passenger seat of David Sanchez’s car; Cruz later died. A .38 revolver and two bullets matching the revolver were recovered. Autopsy and toxicology showed a trajectory consistent with someone standing over a seated victim and a BAC of .238.
- Ruiz Suchiapa Venturino was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), aggravated assault(s), and related firearm counts; convicted of felony murder and related counts (not malice murder); sentenced to life plus five years consecutive for the firearm enhancement; other counts merged.
- Venturino’s defense at trial: self-defense — he testified Cruz threatened his life and reached for a weapon when Cruz opened the car door; he also admitted post-shooting statements that he had “screwed up [his] life.”
- Prosecution evidence: eyewitness Sanchez and witness Gomez testified Cruz was asleep/intoxicated; Gomez said Venturino told her after the shooting that he had sent Cruz “to hell” and did not claim self-defense to her; medical examiner testified about bullet trajectories corroborating a standing shooter over a seated victim.
- Post-trial Venturino raised a range of evidentiary and instructional claims on appeal (exclusion of certain defense questioning, admission of autopsy and other photographs, admission of hearsay about disparaging remarks, refusal to charge mutual combat, and prosecutor misstatement in closing).
Issues
| Issue | Venturino’s Argument | State’s Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of portions of a phone call (defense impeachment/exculpatory hearsay) | Trial court wrongly barred questioning that Venturino told Sanchez he shot Cruz in self-defense | Ruling discretionary; Venturino’s testimony already relayed same point; error (if any) harmless given overwhelming evidence | Any error harmless; no reversal |
| Admission of autopsy photograph (gruesome, prejudicial) | Photo of opened chest cavity after organs removed was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 and Brown rule | Photo was necessary to demonstrate bullet trajectory and corroborate that victim was seated; probative value outweighed prejudice | Admission proper under Rules 401–403; Brown rule abrogated by new Evidence Code |
| Admission of machete/baseball bat photos and testimony about knife condition | Items prejudicial and irrelevant/improper opinion testimony | Items were minimally used and not emphasized; any error harmless given overwhelming proof | Any error harmless; no reversible error |
| Refusal to give mutual combat instruction | Mutual combat should have been presented to jury | No evidence of mutual intent to fight; evidence showed victim asleep and shot; self-defense charge was properly given | Court correctly refused mutual combat instruction |
| Prosecutor’s misstatement in closing that voluntary manslaughter is an affirmative defense; failure to rebuke | Misstatement required rebuke and corrective instruction under OCGA § 17-8-75 | Misstatement at most a legal error, not a factual injection; prosecutor corrected herself and court charged correctly | Any error harmless; no mistrial or rebuke required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to the verdict)
- Crews v. State, 300 Ga. 104 (2016) (application of Jackson sufficiency review in Georgia)
- Pike v. State, 302 Ga. 795 (2018) (autopsy photos admissible when relevant to nature/location of injuries)
- Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862 (1983) (previously announced categorical rule limiting autopsy photos; abrogated here by new Evidence Code)
- State v. Orr, 305 Ga. 729 (2019) (disapproved categorical judge‑made evidentiary rules; new Evidence Code governs exclusion under Rules 401–403)
- Westbrook v. State, 291 Ga. 60 (2012) (harmless error when other evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
- Berrian v. State, 297 Ga. 740 (2015) (distinguishing mutual combat from self-defense; mutual combat instruction requires evidence of reciprocal intent to fight)