Watson v. State

Decision Date02 May 2016
Docket NumberNo. A16A0228.,A16A0228.
PartiesWATSON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John Walker Rick, for Appellant.

Robert D. James Jr., Dist. Atty., Gerald Mason, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.

PETERSON

, Judge.

Rodrekus Watson, convicted of robbery as a lesser included offense of armed robbery and theft by receiving stolen property, appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict made after the State's case-in-chief, and urges us to overrule precedent from the Supreme Court of Georgia providing that we may consider all the trial evidence, not just the evidence introduced during the State's case-in-chief, in evaluating this claim. Watson also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to or request a limiting instruction with regard to references to his status as a convicted felon. Because we have no authority to overrule or modify a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the evidence did not demand a verdict of acquittal, we reject Watson's first claim of error. We also conclude that Watson's claim that counsel was ineffective fails because, given the strong evidence connecting Watson to the robbery, he has failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different but for his counsel's error. Therefore, we affirm.

On appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict, this Court must view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Helton v. State, 284 Ga.App. 777, 777–78(1), 644 S.E.2d 896 (2007)

. So viewed, the trial evidence shows that three men participated in a smash-and-grab robbery at a jewelry kiosk in a mall. The assailants used hammers to shatter the glass display cases, took jewelry from the cases, and fled the scene in a stolen car. After the assailants fled, the kiosk employee noticed blood on top of the glass display case that was not there prior to the robbery.

A police investigator took blood swabs from the display case and from broken glass inside the display case, and sent the samples for DNA testing.1 A GBI DNA analyst compared the DNA profile from the recovered blood samples against a list of known individuals, which did not include Watson, and determined that the DNA was not a match for these individuals. The DNA analyst then submitted the DNA profile to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which collects DNA profiles provided by local laboratories taken from arrestees, convicted offenders, and forensic evidence found at crime scenes, including those from unidentified individuals. See Bharadia v. State, 297 Ga. 567, 568(1) n. 3, 774 S.E.2d 90 (2015)

.

CODIS issued a “hit” indicating that Watson was a match for the DNA profile obtained from the blood swabs. The CODIS report provided that it was to be used only as an investigative lead. The GBI DNA analyst testified that GBI has a policy requiring local authorities to obtain another DNA sample from the individual identified in the CODIS report and submit it for further testing in order to confirm the CODIS results. No additional DNA samples were taken from Watson until about a week before his May 2012 trial.

The trial court initially held that the DNA test results of those additional samples were inadmissible because Watson did not receive a copy of the results prior to trial. But after Watson called Curtis Turner, a co-defendant, to testify that he did not know Watson and that Watson was not involved in the robbery,2 the trial court granted the State's request to present rebuttal evidence. On rebuttal, the State introduced evidence that it had confirmed the CODIS report after testing the additional DNA samples taken from Watson in May 2012, meaning that Watson's DNA profile matched that of the blood recovered from the display case. The jury subsequently found Watson guilty of robbery and, based on the use of the stolen vehicle, theft by receiving stolen property.

1. On appeal, Watson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, and argues that our review of his claim should be limited to the evidence introduced during the State's case-in-chief. Watson argues that at the time he made his motion, the only evidence linking him to the crime was the CODIS report that specifically provided that the information contained therein was to be used only as an investigative lead and was required to be confirmed with further investigation. We disagree.

A motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when “there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom shall demand a verdict of acquittal or ‘not guilty.’ OCGA § 17–9–1(a)

; Parham v. State, 320 Ga.App. 676, 677(2), 739 S.E.2d 135 (2013). Under Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 374–75(1), 219 S.E.2d 743 (1975), a court reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is not limited to considering only the evidence presented in the case-in-chief, but may consider all the evidence in the case.

Here, the State introduced evidence during its case-in-chief showing that a CODIS report revealed that the DNA found at the crime scene was a match for Watson. On rebuttal, the State presented evidence that the CODIS report was confirmed with subsequent testing. In a protracted argument spanning almost half of his brief, Watson argues that we should overrule or abandon Bethay's express provision that we may consider all of the trial evidence in evaluating the denial of a motion for directed verdict. But we have “no authority to overrule or modify a decision made by the Supreme Court of Georgia, as the decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.” Hudson v. State, 325 Ga.App. 657, 660(3), 754 S.E.2d 626 (2014)

(citation and punctuation omitted). Moreover, Watson makes no argument that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal evidence confirming the DNA match. Thus, Watson has failed to provide a legal basis precluding our consideration of the DNA evidence.

Reviewing all of the trial evidence, the State established that no blood was on the display...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dixon v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2019
    ...by the Supreme Court of Georgia, as the decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents." Watson v. State , 337 Ga. App. 16, 18 (1), 785 S.E.2d 656 (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).The trial court did not lack jurisdiction to enter the written order memoria......
  • Dixon v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2019
    ...by the Supreme Court of Georgia, as the decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents." Watson v. State , 337 Ga. App. 16, 18 (1), 785 S.E.2d 656 (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).The trial court did not lack jurisdiction to enter the written order memoria......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2020
    ...Supreme Court of Georgia’s holding applies here, and, without question, we are bound by this principle of law. Watson v. State , 337 Ga. App. 16, 18 (1), 785 S.E.2d 656 (2016) ("[W]e have no authority to overrule or modify a decision made by the Supreme Court of Georgia, as the decisions of......
  • Kempton v. S. Flavor Real Estate
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2021
    ... ... for our Supreme Court. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) ... Watson v. State, 337 Ga.App. 16, 18 (2) (785 S.E.2d ... 656) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT