Madrigal v. The State
Citation | 287 Ga. 121,694 S.E.2d 652 |
Decision Date | 19 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. S10A0209.,S10A0209. |
Parties | MADRIGALv.The STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Gerard B. Kleinrock, Decatur, for appellant.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Dist. Atty., Leonora Grant, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., David A. Zisook, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found Victor Manuel Madrigal guilty of the malice murder of Melida Guerrero, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime. The trial court merged the aggravated assault and aggravated battery counts into the malice murder, entered judgments of conviction on the remaining guilty verdicts, and sentenced Madrigal to life imprisonment for the murder and a consecutive five-year term for the weapons charge. A motion for new trial was denied, and Madrigal appeals.*
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that the victim was Madrigal's former girlfriend who threatened to call the police on a certain Monday if he did not return money which he had taken from her bank account. On the weekend prior to the date specified by the victim, Madrigal became angry with her, searched for her, and eventually used two knives to stab her repeatedly and fatally in her car. His fingerprint was found on the car, and knives which were identical to one in the car were found in his apartment. Immediately after the stabbing, Madrigal had cuts on his right hand and wrist, and he fled to Mexico. Three and one-half years later, he arrived in Canada on a flight from Mexico, was detained based upon an outstanding arrest warrant, and admitted that he stabbed the victim a few times, but claimed self-defense. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Madrigal 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); Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 304, 305(1), 667 S.E.2d 65 (2008).
Madrigal contends that the officer's statement that “withholding information” would “make things worse for you” was a threat constituting a hope of benefit and fear of injury in violation of OCGA § 24-3-50 and, therefore, that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the subsequent statements made by Madrigal.
The State conceded below that, although the Canadian officer's failure to inform Madrigal of his Fifth Amendment rights would not make his statements inadmissible, Assuming for purposes of this appeal only that OCGA § 24-3-50 is applicable, the Canadian officer's statement that withholding information would make things worse for Madrigal is, in context, an admonition not to damage his credibility but to tell the truth. Where, as here, no promises of lighter punishment were made to the suspect, such an admonition to tell the truth Henry v. State, 265 Ga. 732, 736(4)(c), 462 S.E.2d 737 (1995) ( ). See also Stringer v. State, 285 Ga. 842, 845(3), 684 S.E.2d 590 (2009); State v. Roberts, 273 Ga. 514, 516(3), 543 S.E.2d 725 (2001), overruled on other grounds Vergara v. State, 283 Ga. 175, 178(1), 657 S.E.2d 863 (2008). Furthermore, the Canadian officer's statement does not show the physical or mental torture or the coercion by threats that constitutes the remotest fear of injury forbidden by OCGA § 24-3-50. State v. Roberts, supra at 517(4), 543 S.E.2d 725. Compare State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98, 100(1), 686 S.E.2d 244 (2009).
3. Madrigal urges that the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of persuasion when it instructed the jury that, “[i]f you believe that the defendant was justified, then it would be your duty to acquit the defendant.” Because Madrigal was tried after the effective date of the 2007 amendment to OCGA § 17-8-58 and “did not specifically object to [this] charge ... at the conclusion of the jury charge, he has waived his right to urge error on appeal.” Metz v. State, 284 Ga. 614, 620(5), 669 S.E.2d 121 (2008). Moreover, Madrigal requested the instruction of which he now complains. Mitchell v. State, 283 Ga. 341, 343(2), 659 S.E.2d 356 (2008).
However, Madrigal also contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by requesting the charge.
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), [Madrigal] [Cit.] “ [Cit.]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kelly
...287 Ga. 187(4), 695 S.E.2d 210 (2010) (same); Hicks v. State, 287 Ga. 260(4), 695 S.E.2d 195 (2010) (same), with Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121(3), 694 S.E.2d 652 (2010) (finding waiver of unpreserved error without addressing plain error); Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 889(3), 692 S.E.2d 379 (......
-
Howard v. the State.Ross v. the State., s. S10A2028
...charge ... at the conclusion of the jury charge, he has waived his right to urge error on appeal.’ [Cit.]” Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121, 122–123(3), 694 S.E.2d 652 (2010). Moreover, we find no reversible error, much less any “plain error” pursuant to OCGA § 17–8–58(b), assuming that analy......
-
Collier v. the State.
...charge ... at the conclusion of the jury charge, he has waived his right to urge error on appeal.’ [Cit.]” Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121, 122–123(3), 694 S.E.2d 652 (2010). Moreover, we find no reversible error, much less any “plain error” pursuant to OCGA § 17–8–58(b), assuming that analy......
-
State v. Mobley
...Ga. 126, 131(3), 765 S.E.2d 336 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). This principle is a settled one. See Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121, 123(3), 694 S.E.2d 652 (2010), overruled on other grounds, State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32(1), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Hill v. State, 284 Ga. 521, 5......
-
Criminal Law
...Higginbotham v. State, 287 Ga. 187, 695 S.E.2d 210 (2010); Hicks v. State, 287 Ga. 260, 695 S.E.2d 195 (2010) with Madrigal v. State, 287 Ga. 121, 694 S.E.2d 652 (2010); Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 889, 692 S.E.2d 379 (2010); Hatcher v. State, 286 Ga. 491, 690 S.E.2d 174 (2010); Metz v. Stat......