Walker v. State
314 Ga. App. 714
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Walker was convicted by a jury of perjury after a red light trial where the video did not record the red light violation and the red light trial was not court-reported.
- In the red light trial, Walker testified that the officer was pulling out of a restaurant parking lot; he drew a diagram placing the patrol car in a location making the red-light observation impossible.
- The judge and others concluded both Walker and the officer may have committed perjury; the State reviewed the video and confirmed the officer’s location as testified.
- Walker was indicted for perjury based on his testimony about the officer’s patrol-car location in the red light trial; the red light trial had no transcript, so the State relied on multiple witnesses to reconstruct it.
- During the perjury trial, the State proved Walker’s sworn false statements through witness testimony due to the absence of an original transcript of the prior proceeding.
- Walker challenged proceedings on issues including materiality, admissibility of unredacted indictment, method of proving former-perjury testimony, jury instructions, Brady compliance, and discovery obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of the false statement | Walker contends the false statement was not material to the red light trial. | State contends the statement affected credibility and the red light issue. | Sufficient evidence supported materiality. |
| Reading unredacted indictment to the jury | Read unredacted reference to red light trial harmed Walker’s character. | Reference was relevant to context; no harm shown. | No reversible harm; harmless error. |
| Proof of former-perjury testimony when no transcript exists | Unavailability of official transcript requires dismissal or exemption. | Witness testimony allowed to prove former perjury due to unavailable record. | Witness testimony properly admitted; no error. |
| Jury instruction on proving perjury from records | State should be required to present the original record or authenticated transcript. | Requested instruction was an incomplete statement of law. | Trial court did not err; instruction declined. |
| Brady and discovery obligations | State failed to disclose juror communications and other materials. | No Brady violation shown; no prejudice from non-disclosure. | No Brady violation; discovery obligations satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardison v. State, 86 Ga.App. 403 (Ga. App. 1952) (materiality in perjury and that false statements must be capable of influencing outcome)
- Clackum v. State, 55 Ga.App. 44 (Ga. App. 1936) (test for materiality in perjury cases; elements and materiality considered by jury)
- West v. State, 228 Ga.App. 713 (Ga. App. 1997) (false testimony going to credibility can be material)
- McCollum v. State, 258 Ga.App. 574 (Ga. App. 2002) (harm and error required to reverse; standard for convicting perjury)
- Hines v. State, 276 Ga. 491 (Ga. 2003) (indicating admissibility of related testimony without transcript under certain circumstances)
- Presnell v. State, 274 Ga. 246 (Ga. 2001) (harm requirement for discovery claims; not reversible without prejudice)
- Heflin v. State, 88 Ga. 151 (Ga. 1891) (early perjury considerations and evidence standards)
- Sikes v. State, 76 Ga.App. 883 (Ga. App. 1948) (statutory references and procedures in proof of prior proceedings)
- Pence v. State, 36 Ga.App. 270 (Ga. App. 1927) (unavailability of original record can permit witness testimony for former perjury)
- Hart v. State, 34 Ga.App. 592 (Ga. App. 1925) (OCGA provisions and use of witness testimony when records are unavailable)
- Brinkley v. State, 301 Ga.App. 827 (Ga. App. 2009) (discovery and evidentiary rules in perjury context)
- Hunt v. State, 278 Ga. 479 (Ga. 2004) (analysis of materiality and evidence standards in perjury cases)
- Chandler v. State, 309 Ga.App. 611 (Ga. App. 2011) (limits of jury instructions and completeness of charges)
- Parks v. State, 294 Ga.App. 646 (Ga. App. 2008) (discovery and evidentiary obligations in criminal prosecutions)
- Prindle v. State, 240 Ga.App. 461 (Ga. App. 1999) (harm and error standards in discovery rulings)
- Evans v. State, 233 Ga.App. 879 (Ga. App. 1998) (discovery obligations and materiality considerations)
- Worthy v. State, 252 Ga.App. 852 (Ga. App. 2001) (procedural review and preservation of error)