Manley v. The State.Allen, S10A0136
Decision Date | 28 June 2010 |
Docket Number | S10A0137.,No. S10A0136,S10A0136 |
Citation | 698 S.E.2d 301,287 Ga. 338 |
Parties | MANLEYv.The STATE.Allenv.The State. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Gerard B. Kleinrock, for appellants.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney, Leonora Grant, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Christopher R. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Following a jury trial, co-defendants Steve Manley and Robert Allen appeal their convictions for the murder of Emmett Whatley.1 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse in Case No. S10A0136 and affirm in Case No. S10A0137.
1. In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, in or around January 2007, Alexandria Phillips became friends with Whatley and visited his home. A few weeks before Whatley was murdered, Phillips had conversations with Allen, Manley, and Allen-Brown,2 another co-defendant, about Whatley. She told Allen, Manley, and Allen-Brown that Whatley had a recording studio at his house and that Whatley kept cash in his home. At this point, Allen, Manley, and Allen-Brown planned to rob Whatley. On the night of February 8, 2007, Phillips saw Allen-Brown enter Allen's Lincoln Navigator SUV around midnight (Allen and Manley were already in the car), and Allen called her to get directions to Whatley's home. In a series of subsequent calls, Allen and Phillips discussed that: (1) Whatley was not home; (2) Whatley returned home with a woman; (3) Whatley and the woman left; and (4) Whatley had returned again by himself.3 Cell phone records prove that calls were made from Phillips' phone to the phones of Manley, Allen, and Whatley near the time of the murder. Other testimony showed that Whatley did have a date that night, and he returned his date to her mother's house around 2:00 a.m.
Some time after 2:00 a.m., Whatley's neighbors heard a gunshot, and one neighbor witnessed three people running from the scene to an SUV parked down the street. The next morning, Whatley was found dead in his front yard from a gunshot wound to the chest. On February 9, 2007, Phillips met with the co-defendants, and, during this meeting, Phillips received a text message from a friend that Whatley was dead. When Phillips asked the three co-defendants about this, Allen-Brown admitted to the shooting, though he said he did not mean to do it. Allen told Phillips to keep quiet about the crime, and Allen and Manley explained to her that they were going to make up a cover story that they were just trying to buy drugs from Whatley on the night in question. In March of 2007, an informant contacted police to tell them that Allen-Brown had recently admitted to him that he had shot someone. Later, during questioning by police, both Allen and Manley admitted that they went to Whatley's home to buy drugs on the night of the murder but fled when they heard gunshots. In his statement, Manley indicated that he saw a man lying on the ground after the gunshot. Both Manley and Allen implicated Allen-Brown as the shooter in their written statements.
This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find Manley and Allen guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Both Allen and Manley maintain that the trial court erred by narrowly restricting their cross-examination of Phillips regarding the changes in her eligibility for parole resulting from the plea and sentencing deal she entered into with the State in return for her testimony and cooperation. Based on the facts of this case, we agree, but we nonetheless find the error to be harmless in this case.
The record shows that, pursuant to her plea and sentencing agreement, Phillips pled guilty to aggravated assault and received a sentence of six years in prison for her role in the crimes against Whatley. This sentence, however, requires Phillips to serve two years in prison before being eligible for parole. See OCGA § 42-9-45(b). On the other hand, if Phillips had been convicted of Whatley's murder like the co-defendants, she would have received a mandatory life sentence, OCGA § 16-5-1(d), and she would not become eligible for parole until she had served at least 30 years in prison. OCGA § 17-10-6.1(c)(1). At trial, Allen and Manley were allowed to ask Phillips about the length of her sentence as a result of the deal, but they were not allowed to question her about any parole differential. Allen and Manley now contend that this restriction violated their confrontation rights and impermissibly prevented them from cross-examining Phillips with regard to any bias in favor of the State or motivation to help make its case.
This issue was recently considered in Mikell v. State, 286 Ga. 434, 439, 689 S.E.2d 286 (2010). In his special concurrence, Justice Nahmias carefully set forth the law in this area as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nwakanma v. Francis
...of whether a witness entertained any belief of personal benefit from testifying favorably for the prosecution.” Manley v. State, 287 Ga. 338, 340(2), 698 S.E.2d 301 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). But “the extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inqu......
-
Johnson v. State
..., 276 Ga. at 582 (3), 581 S.E.2d 23.12 Watkins , 276 Ga. at 582 (3), 581 S.E.2d 23 (punctuation omitted); accord Manley v. State , 287 Ga. 338, 340 (2), 698 S.E.2d 301 (2010).13 See OCGA § 24-6-608 ("Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting ......
-
Woodard v. State
...of a car was sufficient to support conviction of kidnapping with bodily injury), overruled on other grounds by Manley v. State , 287 Ga. 338, 698 S.E.2d 301 (2010) ; James , 239 Ga. App. at 541 (1), 521 S.E.2d 465 (holding that burning victim’s face with a stun gun before dragging him into ......
-
Brockman v. State
...“ ‘decisions made by the district attorney in exchange for [Lewis's] cooperation and testimony for the State.’ ” Manley v. State, 287 Ga. 338, 340–341, 698 S.E.2d 301 (2010) (citation omitted). See Hampton v. State, 289 Ga. 621, 626–627(5), 713 S.E.2d 851 (2011). Brockman also declined the ......