Wilson v. State
318 Ga. App. 37
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wilson was convicted at trial of burglary, armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and kidnapping.
- The trial court denied his motion for a new trial as amended.
- On appeal, Wilson contends the evidence fails to prove kidnapping asportation and the jury was erroneously charged that slight movement suffices to prove asportation.
- The ICA reverses the kidnapping conviction and vacates that judgment for insufficient asportation under Garza factors.
- Garza establishes four factors for asportation; the Garza rule is retroactive and governs this case; the movement here resembled Garza’s minimal positional change and did not enhance danger beyond the burglary/robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence shows asportation under Garza factors. | State contends Garza factors were met. | Wilson argues movement was insufficient. | No; movement insufficient under Garza. |
| Whether Garza applies retroactively to this pre-Garza conduct. | State asserts Garza retroactive application. | Wilson argues Garza not applicable to pre-Garza conduct. | Garza applies retroactively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (2008) (set forth four-factor test for asportation and held movement must be substantial to support kidnapping conviction)
- Rayshad v. State, 295 Ga. App. 29 (2008) (movement must not be merely incidental to other crimes)
- Williams v. State, 304 Ga. App. 787 (2010) (asportation insufficient where movement was incidental to armed robbery)
- Hammond v. State, 289 Ga. 142 (2011) (Garza test applied retroactively; substantive change in law)
- Goolsby v. State, 311 Ga. App. 650 (2011) (Garza test applicable on direct review when Garza decided)