Sherrell v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A12A1001.,A12A1001. |
| Citation | 317 Ga.App. 571,731 S.E.2d 790 |
| Parties | SHERRELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bernard Stephen Brody, Atlanta, for appellant.
Fredric Daniel Bright, Dist. Atty., Shelley Stephenson Tice, Daniel B. Cochran, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Following a jury trial, Patrick Sherrell was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault upon his wife. Sherrell appeals his convictions, arguing that (1) the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the trial court erred in prohibiting letters written to him by his wife from being sent out with the jury during deliberations pursuant to the State's continuing-witness objection, and (3) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the record shows that Sherrell and his wife, C.S., met in January 2008, began dating in August 2008, and were married after just a five-day courtship. The couple initially lived with C.S.'s parents, but approximately one month after their marriage, they moved in with Sherrell's mother, who lived in the small town of Shady Dale in Jasper County. It was during the early days of their marriage that Sherrell began physically abusing C.S., and he continued to do so on a regular basis over the course of the next two years.
On November 14, 2009, C.S. went to a baby shower at her uncle's home. Upon her arrival, several of C.S.'s family members noticed that she had bruises on her face
and neck and that she had difficulty sitting. When questioned by her family about the injuries, C.S. admitted that two weeks earlier—on October 31, 2009—Sherrell had beaten her with a belt and the wooden handle of a toilet plunger. Consequently, C.S.'s aunt and uncle took her to the Jasper County Sheriff's Department, where C.S. repeated her allegations to investigators. And while there, a female deputy photographed C.S.'s injuries, which—in addition to the bruises on her face
and neck—included two open sores on her buttocks. Immediately thereafter, C.S.'s aunt and uncle took C.S. to the hospital, where her injuries were treated.
After speaking with C.S. and several of her family members, an investigator from the Jasper County Sheriff's Department went to Sherrell's mother's residence in Shady Dale, where Sherrell and C.S. were still living, and arrested Sherrell. Shortly thereafter, Sherrell was released on bond. And although one of the conditions of his bond prohibited him from having any contact with C.S., the couple reunited a short time after Sherrell's release.
On May 6, 2010, a Jasper County Sheriff's deputy was dispatched to Sherrell's mother's residence in Shady Dale in response to a domestic-disturbance call. When the deputy arrived, Sherrell and C.S. were both there, and the deputy observed bruises on C.S.'s face and arms and a bandage on her forehead. When asked how she sustained her injuries, C.S. responded that they were the result of falling down and "rough sex." Although extremely skeptical of C.S.'s explanation, the deputy did not arrest Sherrell but instead took Sherrell and C.S.'s driver's licenses with him to the Sheriff's office so that the matter could be further investigated.
The very next day, the investigator who had arrested Sherrell for the October 31, 2009 incident was tending to an unrelated matter at the courthouse when he was informed that Sherrell was in the lobby of the sheriff's office, requesting that his driver's license be returned. Upon arrival, the investigator saw Sherrell's truck in the parking lot with what appeared to be only Sherrell's dog inside the vehicle. After entering the building and briefly speaking with Sherrell, the investigator walked back outside with the intention of going to Sherrell's mother's residence to check on C.S. As the investigator and another deputy were about to leave, they observed Sherrell's vehicle leaving the parking lot. However, in addition to the dog, the investigator now observed that C.S.—who apparently had been attempting to conceal herself by ducking—was also in the truck with Sherrell.
The investigator immediately blocked Sherrell's truck with his own vehicle and asked both Sherrell and C.S. to exit. As they complied, the investigator saw that C.S.'s face was bruised, both of her eyes were swollen, and her forehead was bandaged. The investigator also noticed that C.S. seemed to be in pain on her right side. Initially, C.S. denied that Sherrell had abused her, and instead, claimed again that her injuries were the result of "rough sex." Unconvinced, the investigator asked both C.S. and Sherrell to come with him into the Sheriff's office, at which point, C.S.'s injuries were photographed and Sherrell was arrested for aggravated assault and violating a condition of his bond. Eventually, C.S. admitted that she sustained her injuries as a result of Sherrell beating her with a belt and his fists.
Thereafter, Sherrell was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault,2 both of which related to the May 6, 2010 incident. Prior to trial, the State successfully moved to introduce details related to the October 31, 2009 incident, in which Sherrell beat C.S. with the plunger, as similar-transaction evidence. And during Sherrell's trial, C.S. testified about the history of physical abuse she had suffered at Sherrell's hands, including the specific incidents that occurred on October 31, 2009 and May 6, 2010. Additionally, several of the sheriff's deputies involved testified concerning their investigations, and photographs of C.S.'s injuries were admitted into evidence.
Sherrell called several witnesses to testify in his defense. In addition, Sherrell testified and denied beating C.S. Instead, he claimed that C.S. had a long history of mental-health problems, including depression and schizophrenia , and that her injuries were the result of a combination of self-infliction, her own clumsiness, and "rough sex" that she initiated. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Sherrell on both counts.
Subsequently, Sherrell obtained new counsel and filed a motion for new trial, alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After conducting a hearing on Sherrell's motion, during which Sherrell's trial counsel testified, the trial court issued an order denying same. This appeal follows.
At the outset, we note that when a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.3 In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, "but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt."4 Accordingly, a jury's verdict will be upheld "[a]s long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case...."5
1. Sherrell contends that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
But the State may establish venue by whatever means of proof are available to it, including "direct and circumstantial evidence."8 Importantly, whether the evidence as to venue satisfied the reasonable-doubt standard "is a question for the jury, and its decision will not be set aside if there is any evidence to support it."9
Here, C.S. testified that shortly after marrying Sherrell, the couple moved into Sherrell's mother's residence, which was in the town of Shady Dale in Jasper County. And she further testified that she was living at the Shady Dale residence at the time of the May 6, 2010 incident, which was the subject of the charges in the indictment. In addition, the Jasper County Sheriff's deputy who was dispatched to investigate the domestic disturbance at the Shady Dale residence on May 6, 2010, testified that when he met with C.S. at the residence she had bruises on her face and neck and a bandage on her forehead. Given this testimony, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the aggravated assaults that Sherrell inflicted upon his wife occurred in Jasper County.10
Accordingly, the totality of the evidence sufficed to show venue in Jasper County.12
2. Sherrell also contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting letters written to him by his wife from being sent out with the jury during deliberations, pursuant to the State's objection that doing so would violate the continuing-witness rule. We agree that the trial court misapplied the continuing-witness rule in sustaining the State's objection, but we disagree that the court's misapplication of the rule requires reversal of Sherrell's convictions.
Under well-settled Georgia law, the continuing-witness objection is based on the notion that written testimony is "heard by the jury when read from the witness stand just as oral testimony is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. McLaughlin
...322 Ga.App. 71, 74, 744 S.E.2d 69 (2013) ; Liger v. State, 318 Ga.App. 373, 374(1), 734 S.E.2d 80 (2012) ; Sherrell v. State, 317 Ga.App. 571, 574(1), 731 S.E.2d 790 (2012) ; Alexis v. State, 313 Ga.App. 283, 285(1), 721 S.E.2d 205 (2011) ; Hargrave v. State, 311 Ga.App. 852, 853 –854(1), 7......
-
McBurrows v. State
...declarations, or other instruments of evidence whose sole value depends upon the credibility of the maker. See Sherrell v. State, 317 Ga.App. 571, 576(2), 731 S.E.2d 790 (2012) ; Brewton v. State, 174 Ga.App. 109, 110–111(2), 329 S.E.2d 270 (1985).(a) McBurrows asserts that the continuing w......
-
Wilkinson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson
... ... After an administrative-law judge (ALJ) and the State Board of Workers' Compensation (the Board) denied her claim, Mrs. Johnson appealed to the superior court, which reversed the Board's ruling and ... ...
-
Moore v. State
...that the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that venue was properly in Cobb County. See Sherrell v. State, 317 Ga.App. 571, 574(1), 731 S.E.2d 790 (2012); Glover v. State, 292 Ga.App. 22, 25(2), 663 S.E.2d 772 (2008) (venue established where evidence showed that victi......