Dukes v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A22A0258 |
| Parties | DUKES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Eric C. Crawford, for Appellant.
Randal Matthew McGinley, David Christopher Williamson, for Appellee.
A Walton County jury found Latwon Dukes guilty of one count of aggravated battery.1 Dukes filed an amended motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Dukes appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) making improper comments on witness testimony, (2) testifying as a witness in the jury's presence, (3) coaching the prosecutor on how to try the case, and (4) interposing objections on the State's behalf. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,2 the evidence shows that in January 2018, the victim shared an apartment with his fiancée, his two children, his sister, and Dukes. Believing that the environment was no longer "suitable" for their children, the victim and his fiancée decided to turn off the power and move out to "get rid of" Dukes and the sister. Two days later, the victim returned to gather some belongings. After finding holes in the walls and food all over the floor, the victim called his sister. The fiancée noticed that Dukes seemed "really mad" because it was mainly Dukes's belongings that had been touched. The fiancée offered to call the police, but Dukes insinuated that Dukes would get "revenge" instead. Everyone eventually left the apartment. Because the only untouched room belonged to the victim's sister, the victim called and threatened her because the victim believed that she was behind the destruction.
That evening, the victim returned to the apartment alone. While he was inside, a crowd gathered outside, including Dukes, Dukes's cousin, Rashard Blackwell, and the victim's sister, who had brought several people with her because of her brother's threats, including Jamie Edwards. The group began yelling insults at the victim, who yelled back but stayed at the threshold of the apartment. Dukes was also inquiring about missing belongings. At one point, the victim received a call from his fiancée who, after hearing the commotion in the background, had her father accompany her to the apartment to check on the victim. When the fiancée arrived, someone in the crowd threatened to assault her if the victim did not come outside. In response, the victim came outside to convince his fiancée to leave, but when he tried to return to the apartment, Dukes "blindsided" him by tackling him to the steps from behind and then hit him with closed fists.
The victim testified at trial that he did not remember anything else after Dukes tackled him. The fiancée and her father recalled how Dukes, Blackwell, and Edwards continued to beat the victim for several minutes, even after he lost consciousness. The attack stopped when the sister yelled that the police were coming, causing Dukes and the other assailants to get into their cars and leave. Blackwell testified that Dukes had a hand wound and that Dukes made a comment as they drove away to the effect of "I think I might have hit [the victim] in his mouth, his tooth or something[.]" The responding officer testified that the cut on Dukes's hand was "consistent with a tooth mark from hitting somebody in the mouth."
As a result of the beating, the victim's jaw swelled. He had chipped and broken teeth, injuries from where his broken tooth
went through his lips, and holes in his gums. An exposed nerve in one tooth caused "excruciating" pain, and at the time of trial, his back tooth was still chipped because he could not afford to fix it. The injuries caused the victim to have mouth pain and trouble speaking, as well as difficulty eating, drinking, and working. Dukes was indicted for aggravated battery by rendering the victim's tooth useless.
At trial, Dukes raised self-defense, and called Blackwell and Edwards as witnesses. Dukes testified at trial that the victim had a bottle in his hand, and although Dukes "didn't know if [the victim] was going to hit [Dukes] with the bottle or not," Dukes "made the decision" to hit him first as he came down the stairs.
Following the guilty verdict and sentence, Dukes filed an amended motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. This appeal follows.
Where the defense fails to make an objection under OCGA § 17-8-57 at trial, we review a trial court's allegedly improper comments only for plain error.3 "To establish plain error, [the] Appellant must point to a legal error that was not affirmatively waived, was clear and obvious beyond reasonable dispute, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."4 If one prong of the plain error test is not satisfied, we need not address the remaining prongs.5 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to Dukes's claims of error.
1. Dukes argues that the trial court erred by making improper comments on witness testimony within the presence of the jury in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. We disagree.
OCGA § 17-8-57 (a) (1)6 provides that "[i]t is error for any judge, during any phase of any criminal case, to express or intimate to the jury the judge's opinion as to whether a fact at issue has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused." "The purpose of OCGA § 17-8-57, at least in part, is to prevent the jury from being influenced by any disclosure of the trial court's opinion regarding the credibility of a witness."7
(a) Admonishing the witness not to speculate. At trial, defense counsel asked Edwards what she saw the victim do during the altercation. Edwards testified that she saw the victim come toward Dukes with a bottle and saw Dukes hit the victim. Edwards then testified that "[the victim] had to hit back for [Blackwell] to jump in[.]" At that point, the trial court told Edwards, Edwards later clarified that she "saw the victim hit like one or two times[ ]" with a beer bottle.
"It is well established that a trial [court] may propound questions to a witness to develop the truth of the case, to clarify testimony, to comment on pertinent evidentiary rules[,] and to exercise its discretion when controlling the conduct of counsel or witnesses in order to enforce its duty to ensure a fair trial to both sides."8 Here, the trial court's remarks were merely aimed at informing Edwards that she was required to testify from personal knowledge. Thus, Dukes has failed to show how the trial court's statement was error that was "clear and obvious beyond reasonable dispute," and she has failed to prove plain error.9 Nevertheless, even if the trial court's remarks amounted to error, the error has not been shown to affect Dukes's substantial rights, because the witness's clarification that she saw the victim hit back "one or two times" with a beer bottle supported Dukes's self-defense theory.10 Accordingly, this claim of error fails.
(b) Interjecting during the witness's silence. Next, Dukes complains that during a different portion of Edwards's testimony, the trial court interjected when Edwards sat silent for a period of time after the State asked her a question:
Dukes argues that through this colloquy, the trial court implied that Edwards was "having to come up with an answer," or in other words, that she was "making something up rather than remembering back to the incident date." Our review of the transcript reveals no violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 because the trial court's comments were made for the purpose of controlling the trial and did not express an opinion regarding the credibility of the witness or the guilt of the accused.11 Furthermore, Dukes's claim again fails the second plain-error prong. OCGA § 24-6-611 (a) provides that "the trial court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode ... of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to [m]ake the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth [and to a]void needless consumption of time[.]" Therefore, Dukes has not pointed to any clear and obvious error, and this claim is without merit.
(c) Instructing the witness to give a responsive answer. Third, Dukes raises error with the trial court's statements during Blackwell's testimony. Defense counsel asked Blackwell, "What did you do [during the altercation]?" Blackwell replied, The trial court then interjected: "The question is: What did you do?" Blackwell responded, "Well, after a while yes, I did like pull them apart and that really was it."
Dukes contends that the trial court's statement implied that Blackwell's answer "was not truthful or was not responsive," and that the trial court was making a judgment on Blackwell's credibility. Because Dukes again fails to satisfy the second plain-error prong, this argument is also without merit. Defense counsel asked Blackwell what he actually did, but he responded with what he was "trying" to do. "A trial court's instruction to a witness to give responsive answers does not intimate an opinion as to the witness's credibility[.]"12 Under these circumstances, the trial court properly directed the witness's attention to the question that was asked.13
(d) Clarifying Blackwell's testimony. Finally, Dukes contends that the following statements by the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 and were an impermissible comment on Blackwell's...
To continue reading
Request your trial