Burns v. State

280 Ga. 24 (2005) · Supreme Court of Georgia · November 21, 2005

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Frankie Bishop Burns's convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault arising from the shooting death of James Gregory Patrick. The court held that the largely circumstantial evidence was sufficient, upheld the admission of a crime-scene investigator's opinion testimony, and concluded that a redacted co-defendant statement accompanied by a limiting instruction did not violate the Confrontation Clause under Bruton.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Thompson, Justice; Thompson
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
November 21, 2005
Procedural posture
Burns appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial following jury convictions for felony murder and aggravated assault. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and several evidentiary rulings, including admission of crime-scene-investigator opinion testimony and a redacted co-defendant statement.
Standard of review
Under Jackson v. Virginia, the evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, it permits a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury to determine. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for reversible error.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia; precedential.
Parties
Frankie Bishop Burns v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencesixth amendmentreasonable doubtappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureEvidenceAppellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support Burns's felony-murder and aggravated-assault convictions under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted crime-scene investigator Terry Cooper's opinion concerning the significance of a button found in the victim's vehicle.
  3. Whether admission of a redacted co-defendant's statement violated Burns's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States.

Holdings

  1. The evidence, although largely circumstantial, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Burns guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses.
  2. The trial court properly admitted the investigator's opinion concerning the significance of the button found in Patrick's vehicle.
  3. Admission of Hancock's redacted statement did not violate Burns's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the statement did not refer to Burns, was accompanied by a limiting instruction, and became incriminating only when linked with other evidence.

Key quotations

We find that the evidence, although largely circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Burns guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (25)
A co-defendant’s statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissibility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant. (27)

Factual background

The evidence showed that Burns encountered James Gregory Patrick in Patrick's vehicle after Burns had been seen with a black handgun and with co-defendant Nancy Hancock while attempting to sell a handgun. Witnesses saw Burns wave down Patrick's car, argue with Patrick through the passenger window, fire two shots, and flee while saying, "I believe I shot him." Patrick died from a gunshot wound, and investigators found .380 shell casings and a button in the vehicle that matched buttons remaining on a trench coat found at Hancock's residence. Hancock told police that a .380 handgun had four bullets when she received it and two when it was returned, but the weapon was never recovered.

Procedural history

Burns and Nancy Hancock were jointly tried beginning May 20, 2002. On May 21, 2002, the jury convicted Burns of felony murder and aggravated assault and acquitted Hancock; Burns received a life sentence without parole for felony murder, and the aggravated-assault conviction was vacated. The trial court denied Burns's motion for new trial on April 13, 2005, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…