Anglin v. State

• Decision Date: 21 September 2021
• Docket Number: S21A0845
• Parties: ANGLIN v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

312 Ga. 503

863 S.E.2d 148

ANGLIN

v.The STATE.

S21A0845

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 21, 2021

Jessica Irene Benjamin, Benjamin Alston Pearlman, Western Judicial Circuit Public Defenders Office, 440 College Avenue North, Suite 220, Athens, Georgia 30601, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric Christopher Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Deborah Gonzalez, District Attorney, Western Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 325 E Washington Street, Athens, Georgia 30601, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Patrick Alan Najjar, A.D.A., Office of the District Attorney Piedmont Judicial Circuit, 5000 Jackson Pkwy, #160, Jefferson, Georgia 30549, for Appellee.

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 him talking so "she knows" and he was now "screwed all the way around." Ruark responded that Anglin had hurt his sister, he was "still waiting on that thousand," and Anglin left Ruark no choice but to tell her about Anglin's drug activity.

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.

After discovering Ruark's body, deputies again interviewed Anglin. After being told that Ruark's body was found and that he had been shot with a .22-caliber gun, Anglin said there was no way he could have killed Ruark, stating repeatedly that he did not know what happened. Anglin acknowledged that the evidence of guilt was pointing towards him, but said that if he killed Ruark, he did not know how he did it. Anglin said that he had a dream in which Ruark was walking in front of him and then fell to the ground.

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 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; State v. Holmes , 304 Ga. 524, 527 (1), 820 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 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 S.E.2d 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." OCGA § 24-14-6. "Not every hypothesis is reasonable, however," and it is for the jury to determine whether an alternative hypothesis passes muster. Brown , 304 Ga. at 437 (1), 819 S.E.2d 14 ; Johnson v. State , 307 Ga. 44, 48 (2), 834 S.E.2d 83 (2019). Where the jury is authorized to find the evidence sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except of the accused's guilt, this Court will not disturb that finding unless it is insupportable as a matter of law. See Brown , 304 Ga. at 437 (1), 819 S.E.2d 14.

The...