Windhom v. State
315 Ga. App. 855
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Windhom appeals his armed robbery conviction on sufficiency, mistrial, jury charges, and constitutional grounds.
- Evidence shows Windhom helped plan and facilitate the robbery, provided a gun, and drove the getaway vehicle; a co‑defendant testified against him.
- Windhom admits driving co‑defendants to the scene and being present during the robbery, but denies participating or knowing about the plan.
- A key witness (the victim) described the robbery and identified Windhom as present; another co‑defendant had been declared incompetent to stand trial.
- The trial court admitted officer testimony suggesting the defendants acted in concert; the conviction relies in part on that testimony, and Windhom sought a mistrial and limiting instruction.
- The court reverses the judgment and remands for a new trial on multiple grounds, including improper admission of evidence and requested jury charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Windhom argues insufficiency of proof to show participation | State contends evidence shows plan, gun, and involvement | Evidence sufficient to support conviction (but remanded for new trial on other errors) |
| Mistrial due to officer testimony | Windhom contends testimonial statement about concerted action requires mistrial | State argues limitation instruction suffices | Mistrial warranted; admission of testimony not harmless error |
| Seven requested jury charges | Windhom asserts missing charges on identification, motive, aiding/abetting, mere approval, mistake of fact, hindering apprehension, and opinion evidence | Court properly covered the principles via other charges | Some requested charges should have been given; overall denial not reversible per se but remanded for new trial |
| Mistake of fact charge | Windhom claims misapprehension of fact negates requisite mental state | Evidence shows Windhom knew planned theft; mistake of fact not supported | Charge should have been given; better practice to include it, leading to remand |
| Cruel and unusual punishment claim | Windhom challenges 20‑year sentence | Not addressed due to remand for new trial | Not decided; remand for new trial renders moot at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. State, 272 Ga. 415, 529 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. 2000) (sufficiency standard under Jackson v. Virginia)
- Fordham v. State, 254 Ga. 59, 60 (4) 325 S.E.2d 755 (Ga. 1985) (limits on officer testimony about defendant's statements)
- Axelburg v. State, 294 Ga. App. 612, 669 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. App. 2008) (police interrogation comments admissibility differentiates sworn vs. interrogation testimony)
- Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139, 695 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. App. 2010) (distinguishes sworn testimony from interrogation video commentary)
- Glover v. State, 292 Ga. App. 22, 663 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. App. 2008) (limits on expert-like opinion regarding ultimate issues by witnesses)
- Massey v. State, 270 Ga. 76, 508 S.E.2d 149 (Ga. 1998) (instructional charges must be substantially covered by jury charges)