Heidt v. State

• Decision Date: 07 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. S12A1430.,S12A1430.
• Citation: Heidt v. State, 292 Ga. 343, 736 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. 2013)
• Parties: HEIDT v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

292 Ga. 343

736 S.E.2d 384

HEIDT

v.The STATE.

No. S12A1430.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 7, 2013.

William Dow Bonds, The Bonds Law Firm, Savannah, for appellant.

Benjamin Henry Pierman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Richard Ashley Mallard, Dist. Atty., Michael Thomas Muldrew, Sr. Asst. Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, for appellee.

BLACKWELL, Justice.

Craig Heidt was tried by an Effingham County jury and convicted of the murders of his father and brother, an aggravated assault and aggravated battery upon his mother, burglary, attempt to commit arson in the first degree, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.Heidt appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it disqualified one of his lawyers for a conflict of interest, denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge, denied his motion to change venue, attempted to rehabilitate prospective jurors who already had formed an opinion of his guilt, admitted certain evidence of his prior difficulties with his brother, and rejected his Brady¹ claim.We see no error and affirm.²

1.Construed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Heidt had a sexual relationship with his sister-in-law, Robin, who was married to his youngest brother, Carey.In August 2008, his father, Philip, confronted Robin about the affair and, according to Robin, yelled at her, pushed her arm, and snatched her keys as she attempted to leave the scene of the confrontation.Afterwards, Robin called Heidt and told him about his father confronting her.Heidt was upset about the confrontation, and he told Robin that, if Philip and Carey “weren't careful[,]he would play ‘old school’ on them.”

On August 23, 2008, Heidt and Robin observed a low-flying helicopter circling the hunting cabin in which they were staying.Philip and Carey had arranged for a friend to attempt to photograph Heidt, Robin, and their vehicles from the helicopter.The next day, August 24, Robin asked Carey about the helicopter, and he confirmed that it was part of an effort to obtain proof of her affair with his brother.Carey and Robin then had a “heated discussion,” which ended with Carey leaving to spend the night at the home of his parents in Springfield, Georgia.³Robin called Heidt “not long after Carey left” and told him what had happened.

Early on the morning of August 25, someone entered the home in Springfield, using a spare key that typically was hidden in a storage room under the carport.The intruder went into the room in which Carey was sleeping and shot him with a 12–gauge shotgun.The intruder then went into the bedroom that Philip shared with Heidt's mother, Linda, and shot both Philip and Linda.The intruder poured gasoline throughout the home and broke out a window, apparently in an attempt to make it appear as though someone had entered the home forcibly.The intruder, however, failed to remove the spare key from the door lock.

Carey and Philip succumbed to their injuries, but Linda was able to call for emergency assistance and ultimately survived.Although Linda was unable to identify the intruder, a police officer observed that her demeanor “was somewhat different” when Heidt came into her hospital room on the day of the murders.According to that officer, Linda “didn't seem to interact” with Heidt, and her pulse rose when he entered the room.The officer also testified that Heidt twice inquired as to how long police officers would remain at the hospital with his mother.

Even before police officers determined that the intruder had used a shotgun, Heidt spontaneously volunteered to the officers that his shotgun, boots, and gas can were missing, and when officers asked Heidt about his relationship with Robin, he denied the affair.According to other testimony at trial, Heidt was one of only a few people who knew that a spare key to the home of his parents was hidden under their carport, several 12–gauge shotgun shells were found in his truck on the day of the murders, and four days after the murders, Heidt was seen with three bruises on his upper arms, consistent with him having recently fired three shots from a shotgun.⁴In addition, there was evidence that, about a week before the murders, Heidt consulted a realtor about purchasing some real property for himself and Robin, that Heidt did not have the financial resources to purchase the property but claimed that he soon would be coming into some money, and that Heidt said he had reason to believe that he would inherit significant money upon the death of his parents.⁵

Heidt contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, pointing especially to conflicting expert testimony at trial about the possible causes of his bruises.As we have explained before, “[i]t is the role of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of such conflicts adversely to the defendant does not render the evidence insufficient.”Allen v. State,288 Ga. 263, 264(1), 702 S.E.2d 869(2010)(citation and punctuation omitted).Given our obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and to leave questions of credibility and the resolution of conflicts in the evidence to the jury, we conclude that the evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Heidt guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted.Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979).See alsoWard v. State,262 Ga. 293, 296(4), 417 S.E.2d 130(1992);Porter v. State,258 Ga. 94, 96(1), 365 S.E.2d 438(1988).

2.Heidt contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it disqualified one of his two lawyers, Manubir Arora, on the motion of the State in April 2010.⁶The trial court found that Arora had a conflict of interest because he also represented Robin, who was anticipated to testify in the prosecution of Heidt, and who herself was charged with intimidating a witness in his prosecution.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused in a criminal prosecution“to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defen[s]e,” and Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIV, of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 likewise guarantees that “[e]very person charged with an offense against the laws of this state shall have the privilege and benefit of counsel.”As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “an element of this right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.”United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez,548 U.S. 140, 144(II), 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409(2006);see alsoWheat v. United States,486 U.S. 153, 159(II), 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140(1988)(“[T]he right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment....”);Powell v. Alabama,287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158(1932)(“It is hardly necessary to say that, the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.”);Registe v. State,287 Ga. 542, 544(2), 697 S.E.2d 804(2010)(“One element of the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment ... [and] the Georgia Constitution of 1983, is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.”).Indeed, the right to select the counsel of choice is, the United States Supreme Court has said, “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” of the right to the assistance of counsel.Gonzalez–Lopez,548 U.S. at 147–148(II), 126 S.Ct. 2557.

The right to counsel of choice is not, however, absolute.Wheat,486 U.S. at 159(II), 108 S.Ct. 1692(“The Sixth Amendment right to choose one's own counsel is circumscribed in several important respects.”);see alsoGonzalez–Lopez,548 U.S. at 144(II), 126 S.Ct. 2557.Among the limitations of the right is the settled principle that “a defendant does not have a right to be represented by an attorney who is ethically prohibited from doing so, most commonly due to a conflict of interest.”⁷Registe,287 Ga. at 544(2), 697 S.E.2d 804;see alsoWheat,486 U.S. at 160(II), 108 S.Ct. 1692;United States v. Campbell,491 F.3d 1306, 1310(II)(11th Cir.2007).Accordingly, the courts“must recognize a presumption in favor of [an accused's]counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict [of interest] but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict.”Wheat,486 U.S. at 164(II), 108 S.Ct. 1692.Whether a lawyer should be disqualified from representing an accused in a criminal prosecution as a result of a conflict of interest is a question committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.Registe,287 Ga. at 544(2), 697 S.E.2d 804.We see no abuse of discretion in this case.

When the State moved to disqualify Arora, it showed that Arora—who was assisting another lawyer in the defense of Heidt—also was representing Robin, who had been arrested in February 2010 and charged with intimidating a witness in the case against Heidt, and whom the State intended to call as a witness at Heidt's trial.Although Heidt claims that both he and Robin consented to the dual representation, clients may not consent to a conflict that “involves circumstances rendering it reasonably unlikely that the lawyer will be able to provide adequate representation to one or more of the affected clients.”Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(c)(3).And in the context of a criminal prosecution, the courts have noted that the consent of the accused “does not always cure the problem [of a conflict],” especially considering the independent interests of the judiciary “ ‘in ensuring...