SEDLAK v. THE STATE.
S02A1160
Supreme Court of Georgia
October 28, 2002
RECONSIDERATION DENIED NOVEMBER 22, 2002.
275 Ga. 746 | 571 SE2d 721
THOMPSON, Justice.
Finally, trial counsel did not err by failing to object to the State‘s questioning of witness Harris concerning his claim that he was attacked by appellant when the two were inadvertently placed together while in jail. Contrary to appellant‘s contention, this was not evidence of a similar transaction, but rather was admissible testimony concerning threatening conduct toward a witness.26
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
DECIDED OCTOBER 28, 2002 —
RECONSIDERATION DENIED NOVEMBER 22, 2002.
Thomas J. Gustinella, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Benjamin B. Reed, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Jennifer S. Gill, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
S02A1160. SEDLAK v. THE STATE.
(571 SE2d 721)
THOMPSON, Justice.
Yolanda Adame Sedlak was convicted of felony murder in the stabbing death of her husband, Robert Sedlak.1 Her defense at trial was justification based on battered person syndrome. On appeal, she challenges several aspects of the jury charge, and she asserts that she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no
A neighbor placed a 911 call to report a stabbing at the mobile home occupied by the Sedlaks. The officers arrived at the Sedlaks’ residence to find the victim on the floor in the master bedroom. He had been stabbed several times with a five-inch kitchen knife; the fatal wound had pierced the heart. While the police were investigating, Sedlak confessed to another neighbor (an off-duty police officer) that she had stabbed the victim.
Sedlak received Miranda warnings at the scene; she agreed to talk with the officers and consented to a search of her residence. In this initial statement, she told the officers that she and the victim had been arguing and while she was in the kitchen preparing dinner, he approached her with a knife in his hand; that she used a kitchen knife to “just poke at him“; and that he walked to the bedroom where she found him a few minutes later on the floor. She was unable to account for the presence of bruises on her arms and legs. A State-administered intoximeter test showed Sedlak‘s blood alcohol level to be .103.
Sedlak was taken to the sheriff‘s office later that evening where she was again read her Miranda rights and she executed a written waiver. She gave a second statement to the investigating officers in which she described her two-month marriage to Robert as tumultuous and abusive. She related the same version of the stabbing as she had previously.
Two days later, the police asked to interview Sedlak again. She received fresh Miranda warnings, and this time she admitted that the victim was unarmed when she stabbed him, and that she planted a knife near the body because she was afraid that she would be arrested. She claimed that the victim had been physically abusive toward her, but acknowledged that she had never reported the alleged abuse.
Two forensic pathologists testified that it would have required a significant amount of force to inflict the fatal wound because the murder weapon was not particularly sharp or pointed, and the entire blade of the five-inch knife had penetrated the victim‘s chest. Both experts opined that a “poke” or accidental motion would have been insufficient force to inflict the fatal wound. The experts further testified that the bruises to Sedlak‘s extremities were consistent with chronic alcohol abuse; and that the absence of bruises to her face, head, and upper chest indicates that she does not appear to have been beaten.
After presenting a prima facie case of justification, the defense offered expert testimony that Sedlak experienced both chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and battered person syndrome.
1. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to
Jury Instructions
2. Sedlak challenges several aspects of the general charge to the jury.
(a) The trial court did not err in charging the jury that evidence that the defendant suffered abuse at the hands of others may not be used in determining whether she acted with the fear of a reasonable person under the circumstances. In Bryant v. State, 271 Ga. 99, 101 (3) (515 SE2d 836) (1999), we held that a defendant asserting self-defense “could show other specific acts of violence committed against him and others by [the victim]. [Cit.] He could not, however, support that defense by the proffer of any evidence based upon the commission of extraneous acts of abuse upon him by anyone other than [the victim].” Accord Lewis v. State, 270 Ga. 891 (2) (515 SE2d 382) (1999). Because the charge in the present case was a correct statement of the law, there was no error. In addition, the jury was fully instructed on the defense of justification and the role of battered person syndrome in determining the reasonableness of Sedlak‘s conduct.
(b) The indictment charged Sedlak with the offense of felony murder while in the commission of an aggravated assault in that she assaulted the victim and caused his death by stabbing him with a knife, a deadly weapon. After instructing the jury on the elements of felony murder, the court went on to define aggravated assault under
(c) There was no error in instructing the jury to attempt to reconcile conflicting testimony of witnesses without imputing false statements to either witness; but if they are unable to do so, the jury should determine which witnesses are best entitled to belief. Mallory v. State, 271 Ga. 150 (2) (517 SE2d 780) (1999); Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases (2nd ed. 1991) p. 9, par. F. Compare Noggle v. State, 256 Ga. 383 (4) (349 SE2d 175) (1986), in which this Court disapproved a charge that an unimpeached witness should be believed.
(d) Nor did the trial court‘s reference to the deceased as “the victim” in the course of charging the jury constitute an expression of opinion as to the guilt of the accused in violation of
This Court has held that the trial court‘s use of the word “victim” in referring to the deceased does not amount to an improper opinion about the guilt of the accused under the statute. Camphor v. State, 272 Ga. 408 (6) (c) (529 SE2d 121) (2000). Nor is the statute violated because Sedlak offered a justification defense. A “victim” is defined in Webster‘s Third International Dictionary as “someone put to death by another.” Whether Sedlak was justified by law in committing the crime does not change the fact that the decedent was put to death by her.
In addition, the jury was instructed that they were not to construe any comment by the trial court as an expression of opinion on the facts or evidence, upon the credibility of witnesses, or upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. We consider the charge as a whole in determining whether there has been a violation of
(e) Sedlak submits that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give a complete charge on the law pertaining to similar transaction evidence, even though such an instruction was not requested.2
In State v. Belt, 269 Ga. 763 (505 SE2d 1) (1998), we held that it is not reversible error for a trial court, absent a request, to fail to instruct a jury that similar transaction evidence admitted for a limited purpose must be considered only for the limited purpose for which it was admitted. In so doing we reversed a line of cases in which the Court of Appeals held to the contrary.3 This was our holding, despite the fact that no limiting instruction “was ever given” in Belt, either contemporaneously with the introduction of the evidence,
Our rule in Belt has been consistently followed by this Court, as well as in countless decisions of the Court of Appeals. In Murphy v. State, 270 Ga. 72 (2) (c) (508 SE2d 399) (1998), we interpreted Belt to hold that a request must be made for an instruction informing the jury that they could not consider the extrinsic act evidence until the jury had determined that the defendant was the perpetrator of the extrinsic act, and we overruled Court of Appeals authority which held that a trial court is required to instruct the jury sua sponte that the jury must decide whether the defendant actually committed the extrinsic act before it could consider it during deliberations.4
The Court of Appeals in Fuller v. State, 235 Ga. App. 436 (2) (509 SE2d 79) (1998), interpreted our ruling in Belt, to hold that absent a request, a trial court is not required to charge that the jury had to determine whether the prior acts were similar enough to the crime charged so that proof of the former tended to prove the latter.
In Smith v. State, 270 Ga. 68, 70 (3) (508 SE2d 145) (1998) and State v. Hinson, 269 Ga. 862 (506 SE2d 870) (1998) we reiterated that “‘[r]egardless of when the defendant wishes the jury instructed on the limited admissibility of similar transaction evidence, it is incumbent upon him to make a timely request to the trial court for such a charge.’ [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the present case, the trial court conducted a hearing in accordance with USCR 31.3 (B), at the conclusion of which the court allowed the State to introduce evidence of a series of acts of domestic violence committed by the accused while in a state of intoxication against a former husband and boyfriend to show course of conduct and bent of mind. Prior to the introduction of this evidence, the court gave a complete limiting instruction concerning the three-prong predicate for admissibility under Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (409 SE2d 649) (1991), and the limited purpose for which the jury could consider the evidence.
We find no compelling reason why our holdings in State v. Belt, supra, and its progeny, would not control the issue now under consideration. In the present case, the trial court correctly and completely instructed the jury on the law pertaining to similar transaction evidence contemporaneously with the admission of that evidence,5 and
In accordance with the binding precedent of this Court, we hold that absent a request, it was not reversible error for the trial court to omit a portion of the suggested pattern instructions in its general charge. However, we repeat our admonition in State v. Belt, supra and Lee v. State, 270 Ga. 626 (513 SE2d 225) (1999), that it is the better practice to charge the jury correctly and completely on the admissibility of similar transaction evidence and the specific limited purpose for which it may be considered.
(f) Although Sedlak did not request a charge on prior difficulties between the defendant and the deceased, the trial court gave a complete limiting instruction contemporaneously with the introduction of the evidence, and instructed the jury on that principle of law in the general charge. Although the general charge on prior difficulties did not track the language of the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, supra, p. 26, par. P, it did not deviate materially from it. In reviewing the final charge as a whole, we are satisfied that the alleged minor omission did not render the charge deficient. “It is a fundamental rule that jury instructions must be considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” Pittman v. State, 273 Ga. 849, 850 (4) (546 SE2d 277) (2001).
Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
3. Sedlak claims that she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and that the counsel‘s deficient performance materially prejudiced her sole defense of justification.
“The standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel is whether trial counsel‘s performance was deficient and, if so, whether the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Woods v. State, 271 Ga. 452, 453 (2) (519 SE2d 918) (1999), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). This court gives deference to the trial court‘s factual findings, unless clearly erroneous, but independently applies the legal principles to the facts to determine the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Callendar v. State, 275 Ga. 115 (3) (561 SE2d 113) (2002). There is a strong presumption that counsel‘s conduct falls within the
(a) It is asserted that trial counsel failed to give proper notice of intent to introduce evidence of prior violent acts by the victim against third persons as required under Chandler v. State, 261 Ga. 402 (3) (405 SE2d 669) (1991) and Uniform Superior Court Rules 31.16 and 31.6. In this regard, Sedlak asserts that trial counsel failed to use due diligence in attempting to locate the potential Chandler witnesses, with the result that much of the evidence that would have supported her justification defense was excluded.
At a hearing on the motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that one month prior to trial, he filed a notice of intent under Chandler. That notice included the information that was known to counsel at the time, i.e., two separate incidents of physical abuse by Robert Sedlak directed at the children of his former wives; and it contained a request to amend the notice as other evidence is discovered. In preparation for trial, counsel attempted to locate other witnesses who could testify to specific acts of violence directed against them by the victim, but without success.7 Counsel employed a private investigator, but despite the investigator‘s efforts, no Chandler material was uncovered in this case. While counsel did locate two additional witnesses who could testify to the victim‘s treatment of two of his former spouses, counsel deemed that the information was not helpful to the justification defense and he made the tactical decision not to amend the Chandler notice with regard to those persons.
After the first week of trial, a second private investigative agency hired by the defense located a stepson of the victim who related that he had been physically and mentally abused by the victim about ten years earlier. Through this witness, defense counsel was able to make contact with Debra Grant, a former wife of the victim. It was shown that Grant had generally attempted to conceal her whereabouts from Robert Sedlak following the termination of their marriage, and that she had changed her last name twice since that time.
Defense counsel sought to amend his Chandler notice and to offer testimony from this witness that she and her children had suffered a pattern of physical and mental abuse at the hands of Robert
When asked at a hearing on the motion for new trial why he did not seek a continuance or waive his speedy trial demand, defense counsel replied that he felt confident that the defense had exhausted all their efforts to locate additional Chandler material, that they were otherwise prepared for trial, and that his client urged him to get the case concluded.
The record amply supports the trial court‘s finding that counsel‘s performance in this regard did not fall below the range of reasonable professional conduct. See Rucker, supra.
(b) We also reject Sedlak‘s claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a jury instruction for the limited Chandler evidence that the trial judge allowed to be presented.
[W]here, as here, the trial court gives a complete charge on justification and on the battered woman syndrome, there is no duty “to instruct the jury on prior violent acts by the victim,” and there is no violation of the rule that “requires that a defendant‘s sole defense must be charged even when not requested.”
(Citations omitted.) Kennedy v. State, 274 Ga. 396 (2) (554 SE2d 178) (2001). As in Kennedy, the trial court gave a complete charge on justification and battered person syndrome as it relates to the justification defense, and trial counsel was free to argue that the decedent‘s prior conduct toward third parties supported that defense.
(c) Third, Sedlak erroneously asserts that trial counsel failed to object to improper comments during the State‘s closing argument to the effect that Sedlak refused to be interviewed by the prosecution‘s expert on battered person syndrome. Although closing arguments were not recorded, trial counsel placed his objection on the record, and the trial court overruled it. Neither prong of Strickland was satisfied in this regard.
4. Sedlak asserts that the State improperly asked the medical examiner whether Sedlak was a battered woman, without qualifying the witness as an expert on battered person‘s syndrome. Sedlak objected to the question as originally posed, and the court instructed
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, C. J., Sears, P. J., Hunstein, Carley and Hines, JJ., who concur specially as to Division 2 (e).
FLETCHER, Chief Justice, concurring specially.
A trial court is not free to instruct the jury erroneously on an area of Georgia law simply because no party submitted a request to charge on the topic. Accordingly, while I agree that the jury instruction on similar transaction evidence that was given was not reversible error, I cannot agree with the rationale the majority relies upon to reach that conclusion in Division 2 (e), although I concur in the remainder of the opinion.
Trial courts are responsible for instructing the jury on the applicable law, and the charges given to the jury should be correct and complete.8 The lack of a request to charge on an issue does not excuse the trial court from ensuring that it accurately and completely states Georgia law for all issues on which it instructs the jury.
Here, without a request from either party, the trial court instructed the jury on similar transaction evidence. That charge generally followed the pattern charge, with two additions, but omitted the final paragraph of the pattern charge. Inclusion of the final paragraph from the pattern charge would have helped to remove any possibility of a misleading jury instruction. Nonetheless, the charge that was given, albeit incomplete, adequately covered the legal principles applicable to the use of similar transaction evidence.9 Accordingly, I agree that the trial court‘s charge on similar transaction evidence was not reversible error.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein and Justice Hines join in this special concurrence.
SEARS, Presiding Justice, concurring specially.
I agree with the judgment of the majority opinion and concur in all divisions thereof, with the exception of Division 2 (e). In that divi-
Thus, the proper analysis here is simply whether the trial court‘s instructions on similar transaction evidence were erroneous. In this regard, the trial court gave a complete and accurate limiting instruction on similar transaction evidence at the time that evidence was admitted.13 In addition to the contemporaneous instruction, the trial court gave an accurate but incomplete limiting instruction on similar transaction evidence in its final charge to the jury. Significantly, the limiting instruction given in the final charge did not contradict the complete and accurate contemporaneous instruction. Because jurors are presumed to follow the instructions of the trial court, because the trial court‘s contemporaneous charge was complete and accurate, and because the limiting instruction in the final charge did not contradict the contemporaneous instruction, I conclude that the charge as a whole adequately informed the jury of the relevant principles concerning the similar transaction evidence.
For these reasons, I specially concur in Division 2 (e) of the
Notes
Sedlak‘s trial was held one year after the inclusion of this paragraph.I further instruct you that before you can consider any other transaction for the limited purposes referred to, you must first determine whether the accused committed the other transaction; if so, whether the act was similar enough to the crime charged in the indictment, so that proof of the other transaction, in light of the limited purpose for which it has been presented to you, tends to prove the crime charged in the indictment.