Watts v. State
321 Ga. App. 289
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Taryn Watts appeals from convictions for simple assault and battery stemming from a fight with Murphy.
- Watts challenges merger of two lesser included offenses (battery and simple assault) with aggravated assault charges.
- Watts argues the evidence was insufficient to prove she did not act in self-defense.
- Watts challenges the restitution and time-served credit portions of her sentence.
- The record shows two fights between Watts and Murphy, with extensive injuries to Murphy and some injuries to Watts.
- The court vacates in part the restitution and time-credit rulings and remands for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merger of convictions | Watts contends battery and simple assault must merge. | State argues separate conduct supports each conviction. | No merger; convictions sustained based on separate conduct and facts. |
| Sufficiency of self-defense evidence | Watts asserts insufficient proof she did not act in self-defense. | State argues evidence supports greater-than-necessary force by Watts. | Evidence sufficient for jury to determine not self-defense. |
| Restitution amount and support | Watts claims no evidence supports the restitution amounts. | State seeks restitution for Murphy's medical costs. | Restitution award vacated and remanded for proper amount with competent evidence. |
| Credit for time served | Watts challenges credit timing tied to probation expiration. | Court erred in granting time served credit prior to proper calculation. | Strike improper time-served language and remand for correct calculation by DOC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (Ga. 2006) (required evidence test for merger: different proofs sustain multiple convictions)
- Goss v. State, 289 Ga. App. 734 (Ga. App. 2008) (separate conduct supports multiple convictions under merger analysis)
- Benn v. State, 309 Ga. App. 373 (Ga. App. 2011) (distinct elements required for each offense support non-merger)
- Culpepper v. State, 289 Ga. 736 (Ga. 2011) (quick-succession analysis not applicable where separate proof supports offenses)
- Turner v. State, 312 Ga. App. 799 (Ga. App. 2011) (restitution and related issues discussed in context of post-conviction review)
- Tobias v. State, 319 Ga. App. 320 (Ga. App. 2012) ( OCGA 17-14-10 factors relevant to restitution awards)
- Lomax v. State, 200 Ga. App. 233 (Ga. App. 1991) (remand for proper calculation when restitution supported by competent evidence)
- Slater v. State, 209 Ga. App. 723 (Ga. App. 1993) (no waiver of restitution amount based on lack of objection below)
- Adams v. State, 291 Ga. App. 681 (Ga. App. 2008) (evidence must support restitution amount by preponderance of the evidence; no longer required to have written findings)