Lead Opinion
Appellant Steven Rouse was found guilty of felony murder and robbery in connection with the beating death and robbery of Scott Gillens. His motion for new trial, in which he asserted the general grounds, was denied, and he appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by commenting on the evidence in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. After reviewing the record and relevant case law, we agree that the trial court’s statement to the venire that the murder “happened in Muscogee Count/’ violated OCGA § 17-8-57 and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence presented at trial revealed that Melissa and
On the day of the crimes, Melissa invited the victim to an apartment complex near her house in Muscogee County and agreed to have sex with him in exchange for cigarettes. Melissa and the victim later went to the store to get the cigarettes while Missy called appellant. Appellant told Missy to have Melissa take the victim to a nearby parking area next to some woods. After the victim parked near the woods, Melissa walked away from the victim’s truck. Appellant, Dewberry and Mellinger, who had been waiting in the woods, then approached the victim. Appellant punched the victim, placed him in a choke hold, and kicked him in the head and throat several times while he lay on the ground. Mellinger took the victim’s wallet but threw it in the bushes after discovering it contained no money. The victim died as a result of injuries to his head and neck resulting in asphyxiation. Appellant, who was arrested later that day, admitted to police that he hit and kicked the victim in the head and throat, but he claimed he did so in self-defense.
We find the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant contends the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by improperly expressing to the venire during jury selection its opinion that venue was proper in Muscogee County. OCGA § 17-8-57 provides:
It is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge to the jury, to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused. Should any judge violate this Code section, the violation shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below with such directions as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may lawfully give.
The language of this statute is mandatory, thus any violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 requires a new trial regardless of whether there has
The record in this case reflects that during its preliminary instructions to the venire, the trial court commented as follows:
This process this morning is what[ ] we call voir dire. Voir dire just simply means to speak the truth. This means that you will be hearing about a case, which is a murder case, that happened in Muscogee County, and you’ll be asked questions about this case.
The court’s statement that jurors would be hearing a case that happened in Muscogee County clearly and unambiguously suggested that venue in Muscogee County had been established or was not in dispute in this case. Venue is a jurisdictional element that must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal case, and the determination of whether venue has been established is an issue soundly within the province of the jury. See Patel, supra,
This conclusion is supported by and entirely consistent with our recent decision in Patel v. State, supra, where we held violative of
The State asserts that reversal is not required because the court’s comment was a “slip of the tongue” or was needed “to orient the venire to the time and place the crime was alleged to have occurred.” None of the cases cited by the State in support of these propositions, however, involved an explicit comment by a trial judge indicating the court’s opinion that a critical element that must be proved by the State was not in dispute.
Nor can we agree with the State’s suggestion that an improper comment made during preliminary instructions to the venire does not constitute a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. OCGA § 17-8-57 prohibits a judge in a criminal case “during its progress or in his charge to the jury” from expressing or intimating an opinion on the evidence or the accused’s guilt or innocence. It is beyond dispute that voir dire is part of the “progress” of a case, and the State concedes that the jurors ultimately charged with determining whether the State had proved the essential elements of its case against appellant, including the venue element, were members of the venire to which the trial court’s comment was directed. See Ellington v. State,
Contrary to the State’s argument and the position taken by the dissent, even considering the trial court’s statement in context, it cannot be construed as a mere comment on the evidence jurors could expect to hear. The challenged statement was made during the trial court’s description of voir dire, explaining that venire members would “be hearing about a case . . . that happened in Muscogee County.” It was not made in the context of the court’s explanation of the allegations of the indictment or the State’s burden of proof and cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as a comment on what the State was expected to prove at trial. While this Court on several occasions has found no violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 on the basis that a trial court’s comments referenced only the State’s allegations, in each of these cases the context of the subject being discussed or the trial court’s contiguous comments clearly demonstrated that the trial court was referring to the State’s allegations or evidence that would be offered by the State during its presentation of evidence. See Foster v. State,
Arguing that additional instructions given by the trial court can be considered when determining the “context” of a trial court’s statement, the dissent would find no violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 because, it argues, jurors here likely would not have interpreted the court’s statement that the murder happened in Muscogee County as an expression of its opinion on proof of venue because the trial court subsequently instructed jurors that what the court said is not evidence and reminded them it was their responsibility to decide the case based on the evidence presented. In support of its argument, the dissent cites Jarnigan v. State,
We conclude that under the circumstances of this case the trial court’s statement to the venire that the crime took place in Muscogee County expressed or intimated the court’s opinion as to a disputed issue of fact at trial in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. In light of the mandatory nature of the statute, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and appellant must be granted a new trial. See Patel, supra,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on September 3,2006. Appellant was indicted by a Muscogee County grand jury on February 13, 2007, on charges of malice murder, felony murder, and robbery. Following a jury trial from August 28-31, 2007, appellant was found guilty on August 31, 2007, of felony murder based on the underlying felony of robbery. On September 10, 2007, he was sentenced to life in prison for the felony murder conviction. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on September 11, 2007, which was denied on March 17, 2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on March 24, 2014. The appeal was docketed in this Court for the April 2014 term and orally argued on July 7, 2014.
Although the dissent argues that venue was not in dispute in this case, the authority it offers for this proposition is inapposite because those cases either did not involve a trial court’s comment on a required element of the State’s case or the defendant affirmatively conceded the fact issue about which the trial court commented. See McCloud v. State,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
Reading the majority opinion, one might think that in reversing Rouse’s murder and robbery convictions, the Court today is simply applying our precedents under OCGA § 17-8-57, and in particular the two recent cases where the Court reversed convictions based on the trial court’s improper comment on proof of venue, Patel v. State,
The first sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 says, “It is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge to the jury, to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused.” The question, however, is not whether a judge’s remark, plucked from the transcript, might be read as a comment on the proof. Instead, the question is whether, when the challenged remark is considered in its full context, a “reasonable juror would have interpreted the trial court’s remark as the expression of an opinion on any issue to be decided in the case.” Hufstetler v. State,
There is another important point to make. As discussed further in Division 2 below, if judicial comments like the one at issue in this case are to be deemed error under OCGA § 17-8-57, then the time has
The second sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 says:
Should any judge violate this Code section, the violation shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below with such directions as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may lawfully give.
This Court has held that an error under OCGA § 17-8-57 mandates reversal of a conviction and a new trial even if the defendant did not object to the error at trial and even if there is no showing that the error caused the defendant any actual prejudice. See Wells v. State,
Although it is not constitutionally required and departs from the common-law tradition and the policy of some states and the federal courts, the first sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 reflects Georgia’s longstanding policy of prohibiting trial judges from expressing their opinions on the guilt of the defendant and the evidence presented at trial. There are good arguments for continuing that policy, and there are good arguments for reversing convictions and requiring new trials when judges have made comments that caused the defendant actual prejudice and thus made the outcome of the trial unreliable and unfair. But other than “this is how we have always done it” — and actually we have not always done it this way — I see no good arguments for reversing convictions in every single case where a judge violated OCGA § 17-8-57, even where — as in this case —■ the violation undoubtedly caused no harm to the defendant. After all, we do not automatically reverse convictions when a trial court violates innumerable other important statutory policies, such as the rules of evidence, or even when a trial court violates constitutional requirements; such errors are almost always subject to harmless-error review. Particularly if this Court — and because of the binding effect of our precedents, every court in Georgia — applies the first sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 as expansively as the majority has done in this case, it seems appropriate for the General Assembly to repeal the
1. Viewing the Challenged Remark in Its Full Context, the Trial Court Did Not Violate OCGA § 17-8-57.
Rouse challenges one portion of one sentence said by the trial court during its preliminary instructions to the full venire, before the voir dire questioning began at the start of what turned out to be a three-day trial. The challenged phrase is pulled from the following passage found on page 17 of the 519-page trial transcript — the second page after the prospective jurors were brought into the courtroom:
This process this morning is what[ ] we call voir dire. Voir dire just simply means to speak the truth. This means that you will be hearing about a case, which is a murder case, that happened in Muscogee County, and you’ll be asked questions about this case.
Rouse did not object under OCGA § 17-8-57 to this or any other statement made by the court during the trial, nor did he raise any OCGA § 17-8-57 issue in his motion for new trial, and even now he does not contend that the trial court ever expressed an opinion “as to the guilt of the accused.” But on appeal Rouse argues that the phrase “a case ... that happened in Muscogee County” expressed the court’s “opinion” that venue was proved to be proper in Muscogee County. When that phrase is considered in the full context of this trial, it becomes apparent that reasonable jurors would not have understood the trial court to be expressing its opinion on whether venue was or was not proved in this case — in distinct contrast to the judicial comments on venue that this Court held to be improper in Patel and Anderson.
(a) The Challenged Remark Considered in Its Immediate Context.
We normally look first to the immediate context of the challenged remark. In Patel, the trial court unequivocally expressed its opinion that venue was established and indeed told the jury that the defendant would not be entitled to dispute venue: “the trial court, in response to opening statement by defense counsel, interrupted counsel and stated, ‘That’s incorrect. That is not a defense to this case. Venue is proper in Fayette County or we wouldn’t be here right now.’ ” Patel,
In this case, by contrast, the trial court’s challenged remark did not mention “venue” and was made in the context of the “case” that the prospective jurors would later be “hearing about.” The court told the potential jurors that they would be hearing about (1) “a case . . . that happened in Muscogee County” and (2) “a murder case” — or, to put the modifiers in the opposite order, a “Muscogee County case” and “a case of murder.” In this context, “case” connotes the lawsuit at hand — the claims that the State has made against the defendant, the truth of which the jury will have to decide; and the adjectives used to describe the “case” are not most naturally understood to represent established facts, but rather contentions presented by the suit for the jury’s determination. See Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (defining “case” as “[a] civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit, or controversy at law or in equity.”). One might call this “a case . .. that allegedly happened in Muscogee County” and “an alleged murder case,” but that is unnecessary and even awkward, because “case” in this context implies “alleged.” Notably, the trial court did not tell the jury that “the murder ‘happened in Muscogee County’ ” or that the “crime ‘happened in Muscogee County,’ ” as the majority opinion repeatedly mischaracterizes the court’s statement. Maj. Op. at 213, 216, 218.
This connotation of the word “case” is supported by the trial court’s other use of the word in the same sentence — in the phrase “a murder case,” which came smack in the middle of the phrase “a case... that happened in Muscogee County.” Rouse argues (now) that by referring to “a case that happened in Muscogee County,” the court was clearly expressing its opinion that the events in question in fact happened in Muscogee County. If that is so, then by telling the jury that this was “a murder case,” the court was also clearly expressing its opinion that the events in question in fact involved a murder. Yet Rouse has never contended (even on appeal) that the court expressed an improper opinion on the issue of murder — even though whether the killing in this case was a murder was the disputed issue for the jury to determine. Rouse never disputed the State’s evidence that the victim was robbed and killed in Muscogee County, and he admitted killing the victim; the focus of his defense was that the killing was not “murder” but rather “voluntary manslaughter.” Thus, while the court’s opinion that venue was proper would have been meaningless
In sum, considered in a context where “hearing about a case” signals what sort of dispute the prospective jurors have been summoned to decide, the trial court’s statement that the jurors would be “hearing about a case ... that happened in Muscogee County” was by no means “clearly and unambiguously’ an expression of the court’s opinion “that venue in Muscogee County had been established or was not in dispute in this case.” Maj. Op. at 215. This is demonstrated by the fact that Rouse apparently sees no problem with the trial court’s statement that the jurors would be “hearing about... a murder case.” Indeed, if our rule is to be that a trial court has expressed an opinion to the jury about what has been proved any time the court uses the word “case” along with a modifier describing an element of the dispute without adding the explicit qualifier “alleged,” then close review of the transcript of many criminal trials may reveal violations of OCGA § 17-8-57, mandating automatic reversal. In this respect, I note that the trial court here also told the venire — on the transcript page before the challenged remark — that all “felony cases must be tried in [a] Superior Court” like the one they were in, and that “[t]his week we are trying criminal cases.” Does this mean that the trial court expressed its opinion that Rouse had committed a “felony” and was a “criminal”?
(b) The Challenged Remark Considered in the Context of Preliminary Jury Instructions.
The context also includes the fact that the trial court’s challenged remark came during its most preliminary instructions to the venire, before the voir dire questioning had even started. I agree with the majority opinion that OCGA § 17-8-57 applies by its terms to the entire trial, including the jury selection process, and thus potentially to any statement that the court makes to those who ultimately serve on the trial jury. See Maj. Op. at 217. However, the preliminary-instruction context is highly relevant to how reasonable jurors would understand what the court here said — whether the court was expressing its “opinion” about the proof of a material fact, even though no proof had yet been offered or even discussed, or whether the court’s statement was merely an introductory description of what type of controversy the jurors would be deciding if selected to serve.
The prefatory comment challenged here is in distinct contrast to Patel, where the trial court stated its definitive opinion that “[v]enue is proper in Fayette County” during the defense opening statement, precluding defense counsel’s efforts to tell the jury what to expect as evidence on that issue, see
(c) The Challenged Remark Considered in the Context of the Jury Instructions as a Whole.
The context also importantly includes what the trial court told the jurors throughout the trial about how they should decide the case. See Simmons v. State,
But where, as here, it is not clear that what the trial court said could only be construed as an improper expression of opinion, then how reasonable jurors would have understood what the court said may be informed by the other instructions the court gave them. Thus, in concluding that comments by trial courts did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57, Georgia’s appellate courts have routinely taken note of instructions that the jury should not infer from the court’s statements that it was expressing an opinion on guilt or evidence. See, e.g., Jarnigan v. State,
Accordingly, what the trial court here told the jurors, almost immediately after making the challenged statement and then repeatedly throughout the trial, provides valuable insight into whether, when it came time for those jurors to decide the case, they reasonably would have understood the court’s remark, made about two minutes after they first entered the courtroom as prospective jurors two days before, that they “will be hearing about a case, which is a murder case, that happened in Muscogee County,” to be an expression of the court’s “opinion” that venue in Muscogee County had been proved. Unlike in Patel, there is no indication that the court (or anyone else in the courtroom) thought that the court had expressed an opinion on the proof and then tried to cure it.
Instead, what the record here shows (with emphasis added) is that, in the very same transcript paragraph as the challenged remark, the court instructed the venire:
The bottom line [of the voir dire process] is if any one of you are on trial, you would want twelve individuals to be totally impartial and listen to the facts and then make a determination based on the evidence and not on any preconceived feelings about the case.
Two pages later in the transcript, before the voir dire questioning began, the court instructed the prospective jurors that Rouse has
been indicted by the Grand Jury of Muscogee County for two counts of murder, one felony murder and one malice murder, and also a charge of robbery. He comes into court with our presumption of innocence, and that presumption stays with him throughout the trial. And the District Attorney’s office, by and through evidence, witnesses, has to prove each and*226 every element of the indictment. If they do not, then of course the case will be thrown out or dismissed or found not guilty. And that burden rests on the State and never shifts to the defendant.... The burden is on [the prosecutor] to prove this case and prove the . . . three charges.3
The prospective jurors were then asked the statutory qualification questions. Despite having recently heard what Rouse and the majority opinion assert was the court’s “opinion” on a “critical element” of the crimes, none of the jurors indicated that their mind was not “perfectly impartial between the State and the accused in this case.”
After the trial jury had been selected and sworn, the court reiterated that the indictment was not evidence,
because both sides of the case hasn’t [sic] been heard yet. Just part of the D.A.’s case has been heard, and none of the defense case has been heard in the Grand Jury room. So that’s why you’re here and that’s why you’ll make that determination, after you hear all the facts. . . . [0]pening statements is [sic] not evidence. Whatever I say up here is not evidence. The only evidence you will base your decision on in this case is what is heard from the witness stand from witnesses and any exhibits or any... other evidence that’s put in.
Just before opening statements, the court instructed the jury again on the presumption of innocence, the State’s burden to prove each element and material allegation of the indictment, and the jury’s role in determining the facts based on the evidence presented in the form of witness testimony and exhibits. The court concluded: “I instruct you ... you must decide the case for yourself, solely on the testimony you hear from the witness stand and the exhibits admitted into evidence.”
In sum, the jurors were unequivocally and repeatedly instructed that they were to decide this case (i.e., this controversy) based solely on the evidence presented, and that anything the court said was not evidence or an opinion about the evidence. “Qualified jurors under oath are presumed to follow the instructions of the trial court,” Davis v. State,
(d) The Challenged Remark Considered in the Context of the Lack of Objection at Trial and on Motion for New Trial.
The context also includes the fact that Rouse’s trial counsel did not object to the trial court’s remark when it was made or at any point thereafter during the trial, and Rouse’s appellate counsel did not raise an OCGA § 17-8-57 claim in the motion for new trial. There also is no claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in any respect or that the trial court committed any other trial error; indeed, the record indicates that this case was cleanly tried, and the motion for new trial raised only the general grounds.
Under this Court’s more recent decisions, see Division 2 (a) below, Rouse’s failure to raise an OCGA § 17-8-57 claim in the trial court does not preclude him from raising the claim on appeal. See Wells,
(e) The Challenged Remark Considered in the Context of an Undisputed Fact.
Finally, the context of the challenged remark includes that the issue on which the trial court allegedly expressed its opinion — venue — was proved by the State and never disputed by the defense at trial (nor is it disputed on appeal). The only time the parties addressed venue was when the prosecutor asked the State’s first witness, a Columbus Police Officer: “I hate to ask the obvious, but for legal reasons I have to. That area where the [victim’s] body was recovered, that’s in Columbus, Muscogee County?” The officer answered, “Yes, sir.” Rouse never contested that testimony or challenged venue in any way.
As recently as 2006, this Court unanimously held the following with respect to OCGA § 17-8-57:
Courts of this State have always recognized . . . that a statement by a trial court concerning a fact that is uncontested or is not in dispute does not constitute a violation of this statute. In Brown v. State, for example, the trial court questioned a witness regarding the photographic lineup that had been presented to the victim, and, in doing so, intimated its opinion that the lineup was not unduly suggestive. [251 Ga. App. 343 , 345 (554 SE2d 321 ) (2001)] The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, however, because the defendant never claimed that the lineup was suggestive. Thus, the trial court’s comments did not require a new trial. [Id.]
Sauerwein v. State,
See, e.g., Johnson v. State,30 Ga. 426 , 431 (5) (1860) (not error to state a fact that is undisputed by the defense); McCloud v. State,166 Ga. 436 , 444 (143 SE 558 ) (1928) (“[w]hile the judge is forbidden to express an opinion as to whether any particular fact has been proved, yet, when the evidence to establish a fact is undisputed, and the fact is*229 admitted by the accused on his trial, it is not error for the judge to [state that fact] to the jury”); Thomas v. State,27 Ga. App. 38 , 40 (3) (107 SE 418 ) (1921) (the statute “which prohibits a trial judge from expressing or intimating his opinion as to what has or has not been proved ‘refers to the expression or intimation of an opinion touching some fact at issue in the case, and not to something that is conceded by both parties’ ”); McKee v. State,275 Ga. App. 646 , 650 (621 SE2d 611 ) (2005) (trial court’s comment on undisputed fact was not a violation of the statute).
Sauerwein,
More recent decisions, however, particularly those involving alleged comments about venue, appear to disregard this longstanding interpretation of OCGA § 17-8-57. Thus, it has been said that “venue is challenged whenever a criminal defendant pleads not guilty to the charges in the indictment.” Byrd v. State,
“ ‘It is not a violation of the statute which prevents a trial judge of the superior court from expressing an opinion as to what facts have been proved, where a fact stated by the trial judge as having been provedis established by uncontradicted testimony.’ ” Sauerwein,
The traditional interpretation of OCGA § 17-8-57 discussed and applied in Sauerwein has much to commend it. Limiting OCGA § 17-8-57 violations to judicial expressions of opinion about matters that the defendant actually contests or disputes in some way during the trial prevents the statute from working injustices by requiring the automatic reversal of convictions where it is undeniable that whatever the court said about the matter had no effect on the verdict. To put this concept in the language of the statute, a judge does not express an opinion — a “belief based on grounds short of proof”
(f) Conclusion.
In the full context of the trial of this case, reasonable jurors would not have interpreted the trial court’s now-challenged comment as an expression of “opinion as to what has or has not been proved” forbidden by OCGA § 17-8-57. The jury would have understood the passing remark as it was intended — as a prefatory statement outlining the type of controversy — the “case” — they would be “hearing about.” The court made it crystal clear that the jurors would have to decide the case based only on the evidence that the parties would later present, and when that evidence was presented and the parties made their opening statements and closing arguments, the proof of venue was plainly sufficient and entirely undisputed. It appears that Rouse’s trial counsel did not interpret the court’s remark as improper, nor did his appellate counsel raise the claim during the motion for new trial proceedings. From all appearances, only when hunting for something non-frivolous to appeal did the same appellate counsel spot' a few words in a preliminary instruction which, when plucked out of context, could be argued to comprise an improper judicial comment on venue — even though a (marginally) better argument could be made that the court improperly commented by saying that this was a “murder case” in the same passage. It is disappointing that the majority opinion endorses this non-contextual approach to OCGA § 17-8-57, and reverses convictions that were, the record demonstrates, the result of a full and fair trial.
Worse yet, by reversing in this case, the majority opinion takes OCGA § 17-8-57 beyond its scope under 150 years of precedent — well beyond our decisions in Patel and Anderson, which are distinguishable on multiple grounds as shown above. The majority opinion opens the door for defendants who were convicted after fair trials to scour transcripts of even the most preliminary of instructions to the venire for any judicial reference to their “case” along with a modifier relating to a disputed — or even an undisputed — fact, hoping that
2. The General Assembly Should Consider Repealing the Second Sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57.
In considering whether OCGA § 17-8-57 should be amended, the first important point to recognize is that our statute does not implement a constitutional requirement against judges commenting on the evidence, only policies established by the General Assembly and thus open to alteration by that same body. There is a constitutional rule against coercive jury instructions, see Lowenfield v. Phelps,
[f]or centuries, trial judges have enjoyed authority to comment on the evidence. At common law, the judge was empowered to “weig[h] the evidence” and share an “opinion” with the jury, even “in matter of fact.” The practice is well established in [the U. S. Supreme] Court’s cases as well. The Court has recognized that a trial judge has “discretion” to “comment upon the evidence,” to call the jury’s “attention to parts of it which he thinks important,” and to “express his opinion upon the facts.” To be sure, the practice has for many years been on the wane. Comment on the evidence has always been more popular in Britain than it ever was in this country. That said, federal courts and several States continue to recognize judicial authority to comment on the evidence, and California expressly protects the practice in its State Constitution.
Id. (citations and footnote omitted).
Colonial and subsequent democratic sentiment favored weakening the role of judges, and over the years many states, including
The second sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 — the remedial provision — is a different matter, especially if this Court interprets the prohibitory scope of the statute as expansively as the majority opinion does in this case. The remedial sentence says:
Should any judge violate this Code section, the violation shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below with such directions as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may lawfully give.
We have held that this provision requires a highly unusual,“super-plain-error” form of appellate review of alleged violations of OCGA § 17-8-57: “not only may they be raised on appeal without any objection at trial, but, if sustained, they automatically result in reversal without consideration of whether the error caused any actual prejudice.” Wells,
(a) Plain-Error Review.
It is not clear why this Court has, in recent years, endorsed “plain error” review of alleged violations of OCGA § 17-8-57 —• allowing
The contemporaneous objection rule has long been a mainstay of Georgia trial practice. See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe,20 Ga. 135 (4) (1856); Burtine v. State of Ga.,18 Ga. 534 (1) (1855). That rule provides that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a proper objection made a part of the record.”
Sharpe v. Dept. of Transp.,
For many years, this Court applied the contemporaneous objection rule to alleged violations of the predecessor statutes to OCGA § 17-8-57. Indeed, in Pulliam v. State,
In particular, Paul identified no language in OCGA § 17-8-57 that displaces the traditional contemporaneous-objection requirement; indeed, the General Assembly had never changed the statutory text in reaction to the many appellate decisions over many decades holding that the contemporaneous-objection rule applied to claims under this statute. The absence of an explicit textual basis for plain-error review stood in contrast to the only other situation to that point in which the Court had engaged in such review. See Hicks v. State,
Since Paul, when the General Assembly has wanted to authorize plain-error review, it has again included specific language in the applicable statute. See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) (effective July 1, 2007) (“Failure to object [to a jury instruction] in accordance with subsection (a) of this Code section shall preclude appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error which affects substantial rights of the parties. Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) (effective Jan. 1, 2013) (“Nothing in this Code section [requiring a timely objection to evidentiary
It may well be that plain-error review of alleged violations of OCGA § 17-8-57 is appropriate as a matter of policy. The argument can be made that the trial court’s improper expression to the jury of its opinion on the facts is similar to the court’s improper charge to the jury on the law, for which OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) now authorizes plain-error review. The argument can also be made, however, that the contemporaneous-objection rule applies to bar appellate review even of alleged constitutional violations, and there is no need to exclude this sort of statutory violation from its reach. For present purposes, the important points are first, that this policy decision should be made expressly by the General Assembly, and second, that as the history of decisions from this Court demonstrates, plain-error review of alleged OCGA § 17-8-57 violations is not required.
(b) Automatic Reversal.
Unlike the plain-error aspect of our appellate review of OCGA § 17-8-57 violations, our cases have consistently held that, when an appellate court determines that the statute has been violated, the only remedy is reversal and a new trial, given the statutory language mandating that a violation “shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below.” See, e.g., Sauerwein,
For the reasons discussed in Division 1 above, it would be a straightforward matter to apply nonconstitutional harmless error analysis to the trial court’s alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 in this case (and in similar cases). It is highly probable — indeed, I am quite certain — that the trial court’s now-challenged remark did not contribute to the jury’s guilty verdicts, because the State readily proved that the crimes occurred in Muscogee County, the defense never disputed that proof, and Rouse otherwise received a fair trial. Why should we have an automatic-reversal rule when a trial court improperly expresses its opinion on whether the evidence has or has not proved a fact, when we do not have such a rule when the court improperly admits or excludes the evidence that is actually needed to prove that fact? I see no good reason to retain the unusual automatic-reversal language of OCGA § 17-8-57. Indeed, the injustice of reversing a criminal conviction solely because the trial court expressed an opinion on an undisputed fact — the situation in which a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 is most conspicuously harmless — may explain why this Court and the Court of Appeals, in Sauerwein and many cases before it, avoided the implications of the second sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57 by reading the first sentence of the statute as not applying to judicial comments on uncontested facts. See Division 1 (e) above.
For these reasons, I dissent, and I urge the General Assembly to consider repealing the second sentence of OCGA § 17-8-57.
The majority opinion asserts that the trial court’s challenged remark “was not made in the context of the court’s explanation of the allegations of the indictment or the State’s burden of proof.” Maj. Op. at 217. In reviewing jury charges “as a whole,” however, this Court commonly considers instructions separated by many more than two pages in the trial transcript. See, e.g., Murray v. State,
The majority opinion repeatedly calls venue a “critical element” of the State’s case. It is important to recognize, however, that venue is not an “essential element” of the crimes charged. If it were, then the Double Jeopardy Clause would bar retrial in cases where the State failed to present sufficient evidence of venue at the original trial. See Burks v. United States,
A reversal for improper venue is not a factual determination concerning the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence that a defendant committed a criminal act. Rather, it is a reversal due to insufficient evidence to support conducting a trial in a particular court’s domain. As such, it is more a procedural matter than anything else.
Jones v. State,
Indeed, while both our federal and state constitutions require proper venue in criminal cases, see U. S. Const. amend. VI, Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI, federal law requires that the prosecution prove proper venue by only a preponderance of the evidence,
In our first venue-related OCGA § 17-8-57 case after Patel, we said:
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that in order to violate OCGA § 17-8-57, the trial court’s comments must pertain to a disputed issue of fact. [Cits.] Assuming, arguendo, that the issue of venue was disputed in this case, [footnote 3] we hold that the trial court did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57.
State v. Gardner,
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English 514 (1985) (emphasis added).