Matthews v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. S97A0945,S97A0945 |
| Citation | 493 S.E.2d 136,268 Ga. 798 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 4171 MATTHEWS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lovett Bennett, Jr., Statesboro, for Joe Lorenzo Matthews.
Richard A. Malone, Dist. Atty., Swainsboro, Paula K. Smith, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Law, Atlanta, Jennifer E. Hilderbrand, Asst. Dist. Atty., Swainsboro, for the State.
Joe Lorenzo Matthews was convicted of the felony murder of a convenience store clerk, Avalon Earls, and the armed robbery of the store owner, Thelma Johnson. 1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Matthews approached the counter of Johnson's General Store in Stillmore, Georgia, with a B-B gun in hand and confronted Johnson, the owner/manager. When Johnson removed a pistol from her pocket, Matthews jumped behind the counter, struck Johnson in the head, and gained possession of her gun. Matthews demanded that Johnson open the cash register. As Matthews gathered the contents of the cash drawer, Johnson fled through the front door. Matthews ran to the back door, where he encountered the clerk, Avalon Earls. Matthews testified he did not intend to shoot Earls, but as he was fleeing, the momentum of his arm caused Johnson's gun to discharge and Earls was shot and killed. Matthews then shot the lock off the back door and fled.
1. The evidence was sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to find Matthews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the felony murder of Earls with the underlying felony of armed robbery, and the armed robbery of Johnson.
2. Matthews asserts that the court erred in failing to strike two jurors for cause based on their familiarity with the defendant and the victims.
The first juror stated during voir dire that the children of the victim frequented a convenience store which she owned, and that she had heard "a lot of information" about the incident. She had previously been a teacher's aide and recalled that the victim's children had attended the school where she worked. When questioned by the prosecutor, she stated that she could be impartial, even though she knew the children of the deceased. She also acknowledged that she had not formed or expressed an opinion about the case, and that she could set aside what she had heard to render a fair and impartial verdict.
The second juror stated that she and her family had been close friends with the Earls family, and that Earls' youngest son and her son had grown up together. Initially she stated, "I don't know if I could be fair in this case," and when questioned further by defense counsel, she stated she might feel uncomfortable sitting on the jury, but she believed that she could be fair and impartial and that she did not harbor any prejudice or bias against Matthews.
Matthews cites Lively v. State, 262 Ga. 510(1), 421 S.E.2d 528 (1992) and Jones v. State, 232 Ga. 324, 206 S.E.2d 481 (1974), for the proposition that the juror's own opinion of her impartiality is not determinative, but that the court must look to all circumstances in assessing a juror's qualifications. In Jones, supra at 330, 206 S.E.2d 481, we observed that "a juror may be found disqualified even though he insists he is not biased; therefore, the juror's opinion of his disqualification is by no means determinative." We explained further in Lively, supra at 511, 421 S.E.2d 528, that the court must make a factual determination as to disqualification based on "all the circumstances known to the court, including, but not limited to, the juror's own opinion of his impartiality." In Lively, the juror was the employer of the victim, and was her confidant and advisor, offering her "fatherly advice" concerning her erratic relationship with the defendant. They had also discussed matters that might be brought out at trial. In addition, the juror had discussions with the defendant concerning his relationship with the victim. After the victim's death, the juror served as her pallbearer and expressed sympathy to her family. Because of that extremely close relationship between the juror, the victim, and her family, we determined that the record as a whole failed to support the trial court's finding (based solely on the juror's statement that he could be impartial) that the juror could put aside his personal feelings, consider only the evidence, and render an impartial verdict.
In Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495(1), 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993), we clarified that the factual determination required in Lively need only be made
where the record shows on its face circumstances indicating that a potential juror has a compelling interest or bias in the case. In this situation, the record must show more than the potential juror's own statement that he can render a decision based on the evidence in order to support a trial court's denial of a motion to strike this juror for cause.
(Emphasis supplied). Garland, supra at 497, 435 S.E.2d 431. As in Garland, the record in the present case fails to show that either juror had such a "compelling bias or interest in the outcome of the case," id., as would require a further factual determination under Lively. Neither juror "held opinions or biases which were so fixed that they could not be set aside to decide the case on the evidence." Wellons v. State, 266 Ga. 77, 84(6a), 463 S.E.2d 868 (1995). The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to remove the jurors for cause.
3. Matthews challenges a series of evidentiary rulings.
(a) At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State established that Matthews was read his Miranda rights, acknowledged that he understood them, and elected to waive his rights and give a statement. Matthews asserts that the statement was rendered involuntary solely by virtue of the fact that he was not informed the interview was being recorded on videotape. In light of a valid Miranda waiver, recordation of the interview without informing the defendant did not automatically render the statement involuntary and inadmissible. See generally Carswell v. State, 268 Ga. 531, 491 S.E.2d 343 (1997). Additionally, even though the officer did not tell Matthews that he was being videotaped, the camera was visible and was situated on a shelf about five feet away. The trial court correctly allowed the videotape of that statement to be played to the jury.
(b) The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph of the deceased victim taken at the scene. The photograph, taken at a distance of 15 feet, was not unduly gruesome or inflammatory as to be prejudicial. Moreover, it was "relevant and material to the identity of the victim, the location of the victim's body, the location of certain physical evidence at the scene, and the location and nature of the victim's wounds." Smith v. State, 258 Ga. 179, 180(2), 366 S.E.2d 687 (1988). See also Williams v. State, 266 Ga. 882(2), 471 S.E.2d 888 (1996).
(c) Nor did the court abuse its discretion in allowing a forensic pathologist to state an opinion as to the distance between the gun and the victim and the angle of trajectory of the bullet which entered his body. The witness explained that forensic pathologists study "terminal ballistics ... what the missile did to the body." They also study the angle or trajectory of the bullet as it enters the body and the path it follows, as well as the relationship of the muzzle of the gun to the point of impact on the body. Since an expert can be qualified to testify based on special knowledge derived from experience or study, Taylor v. State, 261 Ga. 287(3), 404 S.E.2d 255 (1991), the court had sufficient information to find the witness qualified to testify on the location of the gun and trajectory of the bullet.
4. Matthews contends that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defense witness Dennis Matthews with his first offender record.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor inquired, "[A]re you the same Dennis Matthews who pled guilty to the offense of theft by receiving stolen property?" The witness responded in the affirmative. The prosecutor then sought to introduce the record of the plea. Upon inspection of the document by defense counsel, it was noted that the plea had been accepted under the first offender statute, OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq., and that the witness had been discharged without an adjudication of guilt. Counsel objected to the evidence on that basis, moved to strike the testimony, and also sought a mistrial. The motions were denied and the document was admitted into evidence.
OCGA § 42-8-62(a) expressly provides that completion of first offender probation "completely exonerate[s] the defendant of any criminal purpose and shall not affect any of his civil rights or liberties; and the defendant shall not be considered to have a criminal conviction." In Witcher v. Pender, 260 Ga. 248, 392 S.E.2d 6 (1990), we held that the first offender record of an adverse witness in a civil case is inadmissible for impeachment purposes to show that the witness had been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. We acknowledged that a witness may be impeached by evidence of a conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. OCGA § 24-9-84. However, we made the distinction between a criminal conviction and the successful completion of probation following a guilty plea under the first offender statute, OCGA § 42-8-62. Under the latter, there is no adjudication of guilt and the defendant is protected against the stigma of a criminal record. Our rationale was predicated on the clear legislative expression in the first offender statute, i.e., to exclude the use of a first offender record for the purpose of impeachment since successful completion of first offender probation provides complete rehabilitation without the stigma of a criminal conviction.
In the present case, as in Witcher, the witness was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vogleson
...about the confidentiality of juvenile offender records yields to criminal defendant's right of confrontation). Cf. Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798(4), 493 S.E.2d 136 (1997) (restriction of cross-examination concerning a witness's successfully-completed first offender status must yield to a c......
-
Thomas v. State
...as well as error must be shown for reversal.’ ” O'Neal v. State, 288 Ga. 219, 223(2), 702 S.E.2d 288 (2010), quoting Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798, 803(4), 493 S.E.2d 136 (1997). We will, however, address those purportedly missing items in the context of Thomas's other enumerations of erro......
-
Johnson v. State
...be fair and impartial. This combined testimony did not mandate the excusal of Panel Member 38 for cause. See Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798, 799-800(2), 493 S.E.2d 136 (1997) (fact that prospective jurors knew family members of victim not enough, standing alone, to require excusal for cause......
-
Handschuh v. State
...was harmless. "[I]t is fundamental that harm as well as error must be shown for reversal." (Citation omitted.) Matthews v. State, 268 Ga. 798, 803(4), 493 S.E.2d 136 (1997). Here, the evidence of Handschuh's guilt was not overwhelming. Although the deputy testified that he smelled alcohol e......