Walker v. State
295 Ga. 688
| Ga. | 2014Background
- On October 4, 2002 a drive-by shooting at the Interlude Bar in Columbus, GA killed Robert Stephens; siblings Robert Walker and Tasha (Latasha) Flowers were later indicted together for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession.
- Eyewitnesses placed a car leaving the Flowers home at the scene, heard a female voice threaten patrons, and reported seeing Walker and Flowers by the car afterward; one witness saw Walker holding a gun and heard him say they "took care of business."
- An inmate testified that Walker admitted to committing the drive-by while Walker was in custody. Several family members provided alibi testimony for Flowers.
- At joint trial the jury acquitted both of malice murder but convicted both of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; sentences were life (Walker later re-sentenced to life with parole eligibility) plus consecutive firearm terms.
- Appeals raised several claims: Walker argued the trial court failed to give the complete circumstantial-evidence pattern instruction; Flowers challenged (1) the admission of a witness’s identification after a single-photo showing, (2) the trial court’s curative instruction after a detective’s nonresponsive statement, and (3) denial of a mistrial after an inmate’s stray remark identified "a lady" as the driver in violation of a pretrial ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not giving full circumstantial-evidence pattern instruction (Walker) | Walker: court should have given language requiring circumstantial evidence to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. | State: case contained direct evidence (eyewitnesses and inculpatory jail admission); no written request for full charge; instruction unnecessary. | Court: No reversible error — state presented direct evidence; absent written request, full circumstantial charge not required. |
| Whether single-photo identification of Flowers to witness should be suppressed (Flowers) | Flowers: one-photo showing was impermissibly suggestive and created substantial likelihood of misidentification. | State: witness knew Flowers well (neighbor, long acquaintance), gave name before photo; photo merely confirmed ID. | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed — totality of circumstances showed no substantial likelihood of misidentification. |
| Whether curative instruction after detective’s nonresponsive/conclusory testimony was inadequate (Flowers) | Flowers: detective’s statement identifying defendants was improper; required stronger remedy. | State: court sustained objection and gave immediate instruction to disregard; Flowers did not except to curative action. | Court: No error — objection sustained, prompt curative instruction; acquiescence waived any claim; harmless in any event. |
| Whether mistrial required after inmate (Edge) briefly mentioned "lady" was driving, violating pretrial limitation (Flowers) | Flowers: Edge’s statement violated pretrial ruling and warranted mistrial. | State: statement was fleeting, not intentional; court gave strong curative instruction; substantial other evidence of Flowers’s role. | Court: No abuse of discretion — mistrial not required given prompt instruction and other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Massey v. State, 270 Ga. 76 (Georgia: full circumstantial-evidence charge required only for wholly circumstantial cases)
- Gibson v. State, 283 Ga. 377 (single-photo confirmation permissible where witness already knew defendant)
- Evans v. State, 288 Ga. 571 (context for circumstantial-evidence instruction and reasonable-doubt charge)
- Jeffers v. State, 290 Ga. 311 (acquiescence to curative instruction waives appellate challenge to testimony)