State v. Sumlin, S06A1352.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. S06A1352.,S06A1352. |
| Parties | The STATE v. SUMLIN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Marc A. Mallon, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bettieanne C. Hart, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
Carl P. Greenberg, Atlanta, for appellee.
The State appeals from the trial court's grant of a mistrial over two months after the jury returned its verdict against Leroy Sumlin. Sumlin was tried for, among other things, felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Antonio Taylor. Testimony at trial established that bleach eviscerates gunshot residue on the skin, and during the State's closing argument, the prosecutor washed her hands with a purported bleach solution and stated to the jurors that the solution did not burn her hands. Sumlin then moved for a mistrial, arguing that the closing-argument demonstration introduced new evidence and deprived him of any cross-examination. The trial court gave a curative instruction, and the jury found Sumlin guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court released the jury, and Sumlin renewed his motion for a mistrial. The trial court took Sumlin's renewed motion under advisement and granted the motion over two months later, concluding that the State's demonstration during closing argument constituted improper evidence. The State filed a motion to vacate the mistrial order, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
1. The State contends that the trial court's grant of a mistrial over two months after the jury had returned its verdict resulted in a void order. We agree. A motion for mistrial, by its very nature, seeks to end the trial proceedings before a verdict is rendered in order to ensure that the defendant may receive a fair trial. See, e.g., Agee v. State, 279 Ga. 774, 777(4), 621 S.E.2d 434 (2005) () (citation and punctuation omitted). It is not to be confused with a motion for new trial, which is the appropriate vehicle through which to pursue a retrial after the verdict has been rendered. See OCGA § 5-5-40(a) (); see also Ga. Const. Art. I, § I, Para. XVIII (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Corey
...the trial proceedings before a verdict is rendered in order to ensure that the defendant may receive a fair trial.” State v. Sumlin, 281 Ga. 183, 637 S.E.2d 36, 37 (2006). This Court has held that, “[p]rior to the entry of the verdict by a jury, a mistrial is procedurally possible; however,......
-
Hulett v. State
...the court does not have jurisdiction or the order is otherwise void under the Constitution or laws of this state”); State v. Sumlin, 281 Ga. 183, 184(2), 637 S.E.2d 36 (2006) (holding that the State is entitled to directly appeal a “legally void” order); State v. Jones, 265 Ga.App. 493, 493......
-
Washington v. State
...before a verdict is rendered in order to ensure that the defendant may receive a fair trial." (Emphasis added.) State v. Sumlin , 281 Ga. 183, 184 (1), 637 S.E.2d 36 (2006). As a result, "[o]nce the jury returns its verdict, the trial has ended and the time for granting a mistrial has passe......
-
Lester v. State
...so a purported mistrial granted ‘after the jury had returned its verdict resulted in a void order.’ ") (quoting State v. Sumlin , 281 Ga. 183, 184, 637 S.E.2d 36 (2006) ). See also Carter v. State , 273 Ga. 428, 430, 541 S.E.2d 366 (2001) (where defendant alleged improper communication betw......