ANGLIN v. THE STATE
S21A0845
In the Supreme Court
September 21, 2021
PETERSON, Justice.
PETERSON, Justice.
Daniel Anglin appeals his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Chad Ruark.1 Anglin argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in handling an untimely disclosure that someone else purportedly confessed to killing Ruark; trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a lay witness‘s scientific conclusions; and the cumulative effect of these errors prejudiced him. We affirm because the evidence was sufficient to authorize a jury to conclude that Anglin was guilty; Anglin has not shown that the untimely disclosure prejudiced him; trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the witness‘s testimony because it was not based on scientific training or other specialized knowledge; and there are no errors to consider cumulatively.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury‘s verdicts, the trial evidence showed the following. Daniel Anglin and Chad Ruark worked together in construction, and Anglin was married to Ruark‘s sister Elizabeth. Anglin abused and sold prescription pain pills. Anglin was concerned that his wife would kick him out of the house if she ever found out about his illegal drug activity. On February 21, 2016, Anglin and Ruark exchanged text messages about money, and Anglin told Ruark that his wife overheard
On February 26, Ruark failed to show up to collect his pay for a construction project he had completed a few days earlier with his brother, Joseph Ruark. Because Ruark failed to show up and had not responded to Joseph‘s recent calls and text messages, Joseph reported Ruark as missing to the Oconee County Sheriff‘s Office. Joseph and a deputy went to Ruark‘s home that night. There were no signs of forced entry or anything unusual other than the presence of Ruark‘s dress boots, which he usually wore whenever he left the house. The deputy spoke to Anglin around this time, who told him that Ruark said he was going to Florida to do a construction job. Anglin said the same thing to Joseph, adding that Ruark left because he “didn‘t feel right” at home and wanted to work in Florida.
On February 28, a private investigator organized a search party, which included Anglin, to look for Ruark near his house. Just before the search began, Joseph and Ruark‘s ex-wife, Amanda Ashley, received a text message from an unknown number, claiming to be Ruark. The text said that Ruark had found a new place to live where he did not feel like an “outcast” and that he would “be in touch in a few weeks.” Just as he had told Joseph, Anglin told Ashley that Ruark said he was going to Florida to do construction work. Ashley told Anglin that his story was “bulls**t,” and neither she nor Joseph believed that Ruark sent the text. According to Joseph and Ashley, Ruark loved his two young children and would not have left without an explanation. Ashley also explained that the wording of the text was not how Ruark spoke or texted, and that she had never heard him use the word “outcast” or complain about his relationship with his family.
During the search, volunteers were paired up and given a specific area to cover. Anglin and his partner were directed to focus on an area behind the house, but instead of doing so, Anglin searched an area along the fence line, acted “weird” and “nervous,” and told his search partner to look somewhere else. One of the volunteers found a letter that Ruark purportedly had written to his children, but the investigator believed it was a “fresh writing.”
The sheriff‘s office later learned that the suspicious text message was sent from a cell phone purchased at a Family Dollar store. A cashier from the store identified Anglin as the person who had purchased the cell phone. Anglin agreed to talk to the sheriff‘s office and, during an interview, admitted buying the phone and sending the text message. When asked where Ruark was, Anglin said he did not know. Upon leaving the sheriff‘s office, Anglin saw his wife, Elizabeth, who was waiting to be interviewed. She asked, “What have you gotten me into?” Anglin replied, “Nothing, as long as you say I was at the Walmart.”
After Elizabeth was informed that Anglin admitted sending the text message, she confronted him about it. He would not answer any of her questions and merely replied, “The only thing I can say is I‘m sorry.” The next day, Anglin left home, saying he was going to clear his name and find Ruark. On March 6, Anglin asked his brother to take him to a remote area where he intended to stay for a few days. Anglin told his brother that he had bought a handgun for Ruark. Evidence showed that Anglin bought an RG 23-model .22-caliber handgun on February 24, a few days before Ruark went missing, and bank records showed unusual activity in Anglin‘s bank account around this time.
On March 8, the sheriff‘s office conducted a canine search of Ruark‘s property. During the search, a neighbor stopped by to report seeing a black truck at the property early in the week Ruark went missing. Anglin drove a black Chevrolet S-10 truck at the time. Searching the property, the canine unit found a hidden grave with Ruark‘s body inside. The grave was in the area Anglin had “searched” on his own and steered his search partner away from during the February 28 search. Ruark‘s cause of death was determined to be .22-caliber gunshot wounds to the back of the head and neck.
Anglin was arrested following the interview. Deputies searched his home and found several .22-caliber bullets and a flat shovel hidden under a small addition to the house. Deputies also collected samples of dried mud found on the shovel and compared them to soil samples taken from Anglin‘s property and from the gravesite. Soil samples recovered from the shovel were inconsistent with the soil from Anglin‘s property, but matched the soil samples taken from the gravesite.
1. Anglin argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because it was circumstantial and the inferences the State sought to draw from the evidence were tenuous. He points out that no one testified about seeing him and Ruark ever argue and contends that the State‘s theory that he killed Ruark to keep Ruark from telling Elizabeth that Anglin abused and sold drugs was unbelievable because she testified at trial that she already knew that Anglin was selling pills.
When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury‘s verdicts, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); State v. Holmes, 304 Ga. 524, 527 (1) (820 SE2d 26) (2018). We do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the jury‘s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence, leaving it to the jury to resolve conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. See Williamson v. State, 305 Ga. 889, 891 (1) (827 SE2d 857) (2019). “Although the State is required to prove its case with competent evidence, there is no requirement that it prove its case with any particular sort of evidence.” Jackson v. State, 307 Ga. 770, 772 (838 SE2d 246) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).
“The fact that the evidence of guilt was circumstantial does not render it insufficient.” Brown v. State, 304 Ga. 435, 437 (1) (819 SE2d 14) (2018). But, as a matter of Georgia statutory law, “[t]o warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.”
The evidence here satisfied this standard. Days before Ruark was reported missing, he exchanged text messages with Anglin about money. When Anglin said he was “screwed all the way around” if his wife found out about his drug activities, Ruark replied that Anglin left him no choice but to tell her. Around the time Ruark went missing, a witness saw a black truck near Ruark‘s home. Anglin drove a black Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck. Shortly before Ruark‘s disappearance, Anglin bought a .22-caliber revolver that could have fired the two bullets recovered from Ruark‘s body.
Anglin claimed he bought the gun for Ruark‘s supposed trip to Florida, and also that Ruark was moving to Florida because he felt like an outcast, a claim that Ruark‘s brother and ex-wife did not find credible. Anglin admitted that he sent a text message to them on the day of a search for Ruark, claiming to be the missing man. During that search, Anglin acted nervous when appearing to look through the area where Ruark‘s body
2. Anglin argues that the trial court erred in its handling of an untimely disclosure of purported Brady material. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (83 SCt 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963). Although some of the facts surrounding the belated disclosure are troubling, Anglin‘s failure to show prejudice from the trial court‘s rulings is fatal to his claim.
On the morning of opening statements, Anglin‘s trial counsel announced that the prior evening, the prosecutor had told him that then-Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry had received information that someone else had confessed to killing Ruark. Trial counsel said that, given the late hour he received this information and his focus on preparing for trial, he did not have a chance to contact the sheriff. Trial counsel asked for a one-day continuance to do so.2 The trial court denied this motion, saying that trial counsel would still have opportunities to follow up with Sheriff Berry.
Three days later, on the final day of the trial, Anglin called Sheriff Berry to testify. Trial counsel said that the two had not yet had a chance to talk, although he had given Sheriff Berry his phone number, but he was going to call Sheriff Berry to testify anyway. Because the State objected to possible hearsay, Sheriff Berry was first questioned outside the presence of the jury. He said that about two months before the trial, he received a phone call from a woman, Christy Houseman, who said that her ex-boyfriend, Daniel Hale, believed that the sheriff‘s office had “the wrong man in custody.” Daniel Hale is the brother of James Hale, a sheriff‘s office investigator captain who investigated this case. At the time, Anglin was the only person jailed for the murder. The trial court ruled that Houseman‘s statements to Sherriff Berry were inadmissible hearsay, but allowed Anglin to ask Sheriff Berry in front of the jury whether he gave any information to Investigator Hale about any admissions.
When the jury returned, Anglin asked Sheriff Berry about whether there were any admissions in the case. Sheriff Berry described a conversation “related about hearing that somebody had heard that there had been an admission.” But the trial court prohibited Anglin from inquiring further into the substance of any conversations. Sheriff Berry also testified that the person he spoke to was Houseman and admitted that he did not document either his conversation with her or his follow-up discussion with Investigator Hale.
Anglin also called Investigator Hale, who was likewise first questioned outside the presence of the jury. Investigator Hale said that Sheriff Berry had told him that Houseman had called Daniel‘s ex-wife Kim Thomas to let her know that Daniel had admitted to killing Ruark, and then Thomas called the sheriff. Whereas Sheriff Berry said the conversation with Investigator Hale happened about two months prior to trial, Investigator Hale said that it was only about three weeks before trial. Investigator Hale said that he did not disclose this information to the district attorney‘s office until the first day of trial, explaining that although “there wasn‘t a lot for me going on” around the time he talked to Sheriff Berry, the weeks after he “got busy,” including his assisting with seven death investigations.
Investigator Hale then testified before the jury that Sheriff Berry gave him some information about Daniel, that Houseman and
At the hearing on his motion for new trial, Anglin submitted additional evidence in support of his Brady argument. A defense investigator testified that Houseman reported that Daniel admitted killing Ruark because the “devil made him do it.” The defense investigator testified that Houseman believed Daniel was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he made the statement, and that he later said he was joking. Appellate counsel for Anglin also proffered that she spoke to Thomas, who said she received information from Houseman and spoke to Sheriff Berry about it, but that he told her not to get involved.
In responding to the State‘s argument that this evidence still presented multiple hearsay problems, appellate counsel argued that he did not need to present Houseman‘s and Thomas‘s actual testimony because he was not trying to show that Daniel had committed the crime. Instead, appellate counsel said he was trying to show that the sheriff‘s office conducted a “shoddy investigation” by failing to document or follow up on information that someone else “allegedly confessed.” Trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that, had Daniel Hale‘s purported admissions been timely disclosed, he would have been able to investigate them adequately and use them in Anglin‘s defense to attack the thoroughness of the investigation. The State called Daniel to testify, and he denied killing Ruark or ever telling anyone that he had.
On appeal, Anglin argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for a continuance so that he could investigate the untimely disclosure, that the untimely disclosure violated Brady, and that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from asking Sheriff Berry and Investigator Hale about Daniel‘s statements.
(a) The trial court‘s denial of a continuance
Anglin argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a one-day continuance so that he could investigate the belatedly disclosed evidence before opening statements.
A trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for continuance. See
Anglin has failed to show harm. He asked only for a one-day continuance to interview Sheriff Berry. Three days after being denied that request, he still had not done so, stating that he planned to call him to testify anyway. As discussed below, Anglin elicited evidence from Sheriff Berry that he used in his defense, and because Anglin never showed that he could present admissible evidence to support his defense, Anglin fails to show how the lack of additional time harmed him. As a result, this claim fails.
(b) Brady claim
To prevail on a Brady claim, a defendant must show that
In the case of an untimely disclosure, a defendant must show that an “earlier disclosure would have benefited the defense and that the delayed disclosure deprived him of a fair trial.” Dennard v. State, 263 Ga. 453, 454 (4) (435 SE2d 26) (1993), overruled on other grounds by Sanders v. State, 281 Ga. 36, 37 (1) (635 SE2d 772) (2006).
Whether a disclosure at trial is timely enough to satisfy Brady depends on the extent to which the delay in disclosing the exculpatory evidence deprived the defense of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the pertinent witness at trial, whether earlier disclosure would have benefited the defense, and whether the delay deprived the accused of a fair trial or materially prejudiced his defense.
In the Matter of Lee, 301 Ga. 74, 78 (799 SE2d 766) (2017).
Anglin has not demonstrated how earlier disclosure would have benefited him. He concedes that the evidence contained multiple layers of hearsay — a statement from Daniel that was passed through one or two people before reaching Sheriff Berry, and then to Investigator Hale and to the district attorney before being communicated to his trial counsel. Such hearsay evidence can be material under Brady as long as Anglin can show that it would have led to the discovery of admissible evidence. But he has failed to do so.
Anglin argues that, had he been given the information sooner, he would have been able to “interview the pertinent witnesses . . . and secure their presence at trial,” but he did not even secure Houseman‘s or Thomas‘s presence at the motion for new trial hearing. Even if either of them could have attended his trial, Anglin has not demonstrated that their testimony regarding Daniel‘s confession would have been admissible. Anglin argues that their testimony could have been admitted as a statement against Daniel‘s interest, but for such statement to be admissible, Daniel would have had to be unavailable at trial. See
Anglin also argues that the hearsay statements could have been admissible under the residual hearsay exception in
through reasonable efforts.” Id. at 126-127 (citation and punctuation omitted).
Anglin has not shown that he needed Houseman‘s and Thomas‘s statements to prove the point he says he wanted to make. At trial and at the hearing on his motion for new trial, Anglin argued that the evidence was needed to show that the investigation was “shoddy” and unreliable, and that he was not trying to prove the truth of the matter Houseman and Thomas asserted — that Daniel actually confessed to killing Ruark.4 Despite his claims to the contrary, Anglin was able to present evidence to establish this point without getting into the substance of Houseman‘s and Thomas‘s statements. In his examination of Sheriff Berry and Investigator Hale, Anglin elicited testimony that the sheriff‘s office had received some information about Daniel but that the sheriff‘s office did not
document this or investigate the claimed admission. Based on this evidence, Anglin‘s trial counsel highlighted to the jury in closing argument that the sheriff‘s office‘s investigation was inadequate, and questioned Investigator Hale‘s motive for not disclosing the information sooner.
There is no merit to Anglin‘s argument that the trial court erred in limiting his questioning of Sheriff Berry and Investigator Hale. The additional questioning sought by Anglin regarded inadmissible hearsay. Anglin presented evidence and arguments that he now claims he was prevented from presenting, but the jury was unmoved. Anglin presents nothing on appeal to show that an earlier disclosure would have made any difference. Therefore, he has failed to establish that the delayed disclosure materially prejudiced him or deprived him of a fair trial. See Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 593, 596 (3), (740 SE2d 147) (2013) (when audio recording of interview was disclosed after voir dire but before any witnesses testified, Brady was not violated because the defendant did not show that an earlier disclosure would have benefited his defense or that the delay deprived him of a fair trial); Young v. State, 290 Ga. 441, 443 (2) (721 SE2d 839) (2012) (failure to disclose report that purportedly established the lead investigator‘s reputation for falsifying reports and lying under oath did not amount to a Brady violation because the report was inadmissible hearsay that the defendant failed to show would have led to admissible evidence); Burgan v. State, 258 Ga. 512, 513-514 (1) (371 SE2d 854) (1988) (Brady not violated by late disclosure of witness‘s prior inconsistent statements where witness was extensively cross-examined about prior inconsistencies, earlier disclosure would not have benefited the defense, and the delay did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial or materially prejudice his defense).
3. Anglin argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony by a GBI agent that, based on soil patterns, Ruark‘s grave had been dug with a flat shovel. Anglin argues that this testimony amounted to expert testimony and that the agent had not been qualified as an expert in soil pattern analysis. In rejecting Anglin‘s ineffectiveness claim, the trial court found that the testimony was admissible under
Rule 701 (a) provides that a lay witness may testify “in the form of opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the witness‘s perception, helpful to a clear understanding of the determination of a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Bullard v. State, 307 Ga. 482, 491 (4) (837 SE2d 348) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). Anglin argues that Rule 701 (a) was not satisfied because the GBI agent‘s testimony was based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. But the record does not support Anglin‘s claim. The GBI agent testified about his observations of the grave site, and that its characteristics — sharp angles and flat, level surfaces in the soil — were more consistent with being dug by a flat shovel than a rounded one. The agent‘s visual observations and conclusions drawn from those observations did not depend on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” See Carter v. State, 310 Ga. 559, 564 (2) (a) (852 SE2d 542) (2020) (a GBI agent‘s shoeprint analysis was a “basic” visual comparison that did not require specialized knowledge); see also United States v. Williams, 865 F3d 1328, 1342 (11th Cir. 2017) (an “opinion relating to the appearance of persons or things, . . . size, weight, and distance are prototypical examples of the type of evidence contemplated by [Federal] Rule 701” (citation and punctuation omitted)).5 Trial counsel was therefore not deficient for failing to make a meritless objection. See Lord v. State, 304 Ga. 532, 540 (7) (a) (820 SE2d 16) (2018).
4. Anglin argues that he is entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative prejudice caused by the trial court‘s errors and his trial
counsel‘s ineffectiveness. See State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 13-14 (1) (838 SE2d 808) (2020). With the exception of Anglin‘s argument regarding the denial of his motion for a continuance, we rejected every claim of trial court and trial counsel error. On Anglin‘s claim that the court erred in denying his request for a continuance, we found that Anglin failed to show harm. And this assumed error, individually harmless, is insufficient to establish cumulative error. See Beck v. State, 310 Ga. 491, 499 (3) n.5 (852 SE2d 535) (2020) (cumulative prejudice analysis does not apply when there are not multiple errors to aggregate).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.