State v. CooperState v. Cooper
The state indicted Christopher Cooper on two counts of aggravated assault for striking two persons with a crow bar, Latrenia Walls on two counts of aggravated assault for striking two persons with а crow bar, and Lonell Walls on one count of simple battery for striking someone with his fists. In pleas in bar, the defendants moved for immunity from prosecution under
1. Motions for immunity from prosecution.
In their motions for immunity from prosecution, the defendants argued that they used force in accordance with
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and tо the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, ... a person is justified in using force which is intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Because the state presented no evidence, the evidence that the defendants presented at the hearing was uncontroverted. See Hipp,
Lonell Walls intervened, stepping between Cooper and Robert Blount to prevent Robert Blount from attacking Cooper. Lonell Walls began “wrestling” with Robert Blount. As the two men struggled, Rоbert Blount threatened to kill Cooper and tried to charge at him. He used racial epithets in his threat.
Meanwhile, Ryan Blount hit Cooper from behind, and Cooper fell to the ground, bleeding. Latrеnia Walls, who was standing near a truck, picked up a crow bar. She did not, however, advance toward anyone or try to strike anyone or do anything else with the crow bar, and it appeared to witnesses that she was holding the crow bar to prevent the Blounts from attacking her. Ryan Blount rushed toward the truck and began struggling with Latrenia Walls for the crow bar. Latrenia Walls called out for help. Ryan Blount pulled the crow bar out of her hand, and Cooper’s girlfriend thought Ryan Blount might strike Latrenia Walls with it. Cooper intervened and took the crow bar away from Ryan Blount. Robert Blount then brokе away from Lonell Walls and charged at Cooper. Cooper swung the crow bar, hitting Robert Blount on the leg. Cooper did not strike Ryan Blount with the crow bar.
Cooper’s girlfriend, who witnessed these еvents, testified that she was afraid and that Cooper appeared to be afraid, as well. She also testified that she believed Robert Blount had the ability at that time to carry out his threat to kill Cooper.
Notwithstanding this testimony, the state argues that “the record is devoid of any evidence to support a finding that the [defendants] were acting in self-defense or defense of others.” We acknowledge that, had the state cross-examined the defense witnesses or presented evidence of its own, a different picture of the altercation might have emerged. As it stands, hоwever, the uncontroverted evidence
We disagrеe with the state that these conclusions depend upon improper witness opinion as to the ultimate issue of whether the defendants acted in defense of themselves or others. See generally Melear v. State,
“Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine that [the defendants] met [their] burden of proving that [they were] entitled to immunity from prosecution pursuant to
2. The state’s motion to reopen the evidence.
After the hearing on the defendants’ motions for immunity, but before the trial court ruled on those motions, the state moved to reopen the evidence. In support оf its motion, the state argued that “[a] review of the case law appears to demand the testimony of the victims,” and that “[a]ny error in the [sjtate’s presentations on the motion[s] would only hurt the victims in this case, and is due [to] the [s]tate’s misinterpretation of the law.” The state made no proffer of the testimony that Robert or Ryan Blount would provide.
Whether to reopen the evidencе falls within the sound discretion of the trial court and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. The failure to include in the record a proffer of the testimony for which a party seeks to have the evidence reopened precludes the reviewing court from ascertaining whether harm resulted from the decision not tо reopen the evidence.
Danenberg v. State,
The state argues that the trial court could have exercised its discretion to give the state a second chance in light of the state’s mistakes at the immunity hearing, and it argues that the trial court’s refusal to do so was unfair to the Blounts. The trial court did not overstep the bounds of its discretion. See Tweedell v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The trial court decided this case under Georgia’s former Evidence Code. Under the new Evidence Code, except as to certain expert witness testimony, “testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissiblе shall not be objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”