Jefferson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20A2108 |
| Citation | 855 S.E.2d 43,358 Ga.App. 297 |
| Parties | JEFFERSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard Merritt, for Appellant.
Sherry Boston, Decatur, Deborah D. Wellborn, for Appellee.
A jury found Orlando Jefferson guilty of family violence aggravated assault and family violence battery, and the trial court denied his motion for new trial. On appeal, Jefferson contends that the trial court erred by not sufficiently examining whether the victim was mentally competent to testify as a witness at trial. He further contends that the trial court erred by granting the State's petition to give the victim immunity from prosecution and to require her to testify as a witness for the State. Additionally, Jefferson argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the reasons discussed more fully below, we affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the appellant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Batten v. State , 295 Ga. 442, 443, 761 S.E.2d 70 (2014). So viewed, the evidence showed that Jefferson and the victim married in May 2016, and Jefferson moved into the victim's apartment in DeKalb County. After they married, Jefferson and the victim began abusing illegal narcotics and alcohol. Jefferson would become paranoid, sexual, and irritable when he took drugs. Their relationship became increasingly strained as they would stay up for days at a time, and a few months into their marriage, Jefferson became physically violent toward the victim. Jefferson got angry with the victim when she did not leave him enough marijuana, and he repeatedly slapped her in the face until her eye became red and her face was swollen. She called the police, and Jefferson was arrested. Jefferson continued to physically abuse the victim after that initial incident, but the victim did not always call the police.
The incidents forming the bases for the indictment in this case occurred over a three-day period from Thursday, June 8, 2017 to Saturday, June 10, 2017. On Thursday, Jefferson became angry with the victim, and he grabbed her around the neck with both hands, held her down on the floor with his knees on her chest, and strangled her, causing her to be unable to breath. Jefferson stopped strangling the victim, but he then hit her in the left eye, pulled her hair, and kicked her in the stomach. The attack caused the victim to suffer a black eye, a busted lip, a cut behind her ear, red marks on her neck, and bruising on her chest, neck, and thigh. The victim did not call the police after the attack because Jefferson had taken her phone that day.
On Friday, Jefferson convinced the victim to go to work with him and to wait for him in the car. After Jefferson's shift ended and he and the victim returned to their apartment, they began using drugs, and Jefferson became angry with the victim and accused her of sleeping with a neighbor. Jefferson lunged toward the victim on the couch and "chopped" her on the throat with his hand, leaving a red mark. The victim did not call the police because she hoped that Jefferson would calm down. Later that night, Jefferson barricaded the door to the apartment with trash cans so that the victim could not leave without him hearing her.
On Saturday, the victim refused to go to work again with Jefferson. While Jefferson was in the bathroom, the victim retrieved a gun hidden under their bed and fled into nearby woods. The victim called 911 on her cell phone, and she returned to the apartment once she saw Jefferson drive away from the apartment complex. A police officer responded to the scene and observed the victim's injuries. The officer drove the victim to police headquarters, where a detective spoke with her and took photographs of her injuries. The victim also emailed the detective pictures of her injuries that Jefferson had caused.
In a subsequent encounter around Mother's Day in 2018, Jefferson became angry with the victim and punched her in the face, causing her cheek and eye to swell. Then, in July 2018, Jefferson threatened to hit the victim so hard in the eye that she would go blind, said that he wanted to kill her, and told her that he had been thinking about ways to do the killing. When Jefferson then ran up to the victim, she shot him twice. The victim called the police and explained what had happened. She was initially charged for shooting Jefferson but the charges were later dismissed.
Five indictments were returned against Jefferson based on his violent encounters with the victim.1 Jefferson ultimately was tried in the present case solely on the indictment for the June 2017 incidents. In that indictment, he was charged with family violence aggravated assault for strangling the victim and with family violence battery for intentionally causing visible bodily harm to the victim in the form of redness and bruising as a result of pushing, punching, and kicking her.
At trial, the victim invoked her right against self-incrimination when questioned by the State about her encounters with Jefferson. The State asked the trial court to grant the victim "use immunity" from prosecution under OCGA § 24-5-507 and to order her to testify. The trial court granted the State's request over Jefferson's objection, and the victim then testified about her violent encounters with Jefferson as described above.
During her testimony, the victim also explained that she suffered from bipolar disorder and received disability benefits from the military, but that she took medication so that she could live a normal life. The victim testified that she took Prozac for her depression and anxiety and Seroquel for her agitation and to help her sleep. The victim denied experiencing paranoia, hearing voices, or having psychotic episodes.
Also during her testimony, the victim testified that she did not want to testify against Jefferson and did not want him to go to jail, but she had been told by the State that she would be arrested if she did not appear at court because she was under subpoena. The victim also testified that she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer and felt sick to her stomach, but did not want to risk going to jail for not appearing at court and then missing her next chemotherapy appointment. However, the victim testified that she realized she was under oath and "had to tell the truth" regardless of whether she wanted to testify against Jefferson.
In addition to the victim's testimony, the State introduced photographs of the victim's injuries from the June 2017 incidents and, among other witnesses, called the responding officer who observed those injuries. The State introduced into evidence and played for the jury portions of the victim's 911 call.
After the State rested, Jefferson elected not to testify and did not call any witnesses.
The jury found Jefferson guilty of the two charged offenses. Jefferson filed a motion for new trial, as amended, which included claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After conducting a hearing where Jefferson's trial counsel testified, the trial court denied the motion for new trial, resulting in this appeal.
1. Jefferson argues that the trial court erred by not conducting a sufficient examination into whether the victim was competent to testify as a witness under OCGA § 24-6-601 ("Rule 601") of Georgia's current Evidence Code. According to Jefferson, the victim's diagnosis of bipolar disorder, drug abuse, cancer treatment, and certain comments she made during her trial testimony reflected that she was incapable of testifying in a competent fashion.
As an initial matter, Jefferson did not object to the admission of the victim's testimony on the ground that she was incompetent to testify under Rule 601. Under the current Evidence Code, "where a party fails to object to an evidentiary ruling at trial, we review such rulings for plain error." State v. Parks , 350 Ga. App. 799, 807, 830 S.E.2d 284 (2019). See OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) ().2 And, as explained below, the trial court did not commit any error, much less plain error, by allowing the victim to testify in this case.
Rule 601 provides: "Except as otherwise provided in [Title 24, Chapter 6], every person is competent to be a witness." Embodied in Rule 601 is the presumption that witnesses are competent to testify. See United States v. Devin , 918 F.2d 280, 291-292 (IV) (D) (1st Cir. 1990) (); United States v. Khoury , 901 F.2d 948, 966 (VII) (11th Cir. 1990) ().3 And there is nothing in the record that would rebut that presumption in this case. While Jefferson notes that the victim had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, the victim testified that she took medication to control her condition. In any event, suffering from a mental health condition is not one of the statutory exceptions to Rule 601.4 Indeed, " Rule 601 allows one not mentally competent to testify, and it assumes that jurors are capable of evaluating a witness's testimony in light of the fact that [s]he is not mentally competent." United States v. Gates , 10 F.3d 765, 766 (I) (11th Cir. 1993) ( FRE 601 ). See Andrews v. Neer , 253 F.3d 1052, 1062-1063 (IV) (8th Cir. 2001) (); United States v. Roach , 590 F.2d 181, 186 (V) (5th Cir. 1979) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Galindo
...of legal representation, Galindo does not have standing to mount a challenge based on Vela's right to counsel. See, Jefferson v. State, 358 Ga.App. 297, 855 S.E.2d 43 (2021); People v. Velez, 155 A.D.2d 708, 548 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1989). Neither do we believe an evidentiary hearing was required ......
- Martin v. State