Denny v. State, 281 Ga. 114

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Ricky Lee Denny’s convictions for two counts of malice murder, burglary, and possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a crime. The court rejected challenges concerning severance, venue, jury strikes, mistrial, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, conspiracy instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Holdings

1. A defendant seeking severance must clearly show prejudice. Denny failed to make that showing because the joint trial did not create confusion, the limiting instructions addressed evidence concerning other criminal acts, the defenses were not antagonistic, and Denny did not show that his brother could or would have provided exculpatory testimony.
2. A change of venue requires a showing that the trial setting was inherently prejudicial or that the jury-selection process demonstrated actual prejudice making a fair trial impossible. Denny made neither showing.
3. Under former OCGA § 17-8-4, whether to grant additional peremptory strikes in a joint trial was within the trial court's sole discretion, and Denny showed no abuse of that discretion or harm from the denial.
4. The trial court did not err by denying a mid-trial change of venue and mistrial based on a newspaper article because jurors had been instructed not to read news accounts, and Denny presented no evidence that any juror disobeyed the instruction.
5. The trial court properly admitted evidence of two independent crimes under the applicable Georgia similar-transaction standards.
6. The trial court did not err in failing to rebuke the prosecutor or declare a mistrial because the record did not show a contemporaneous objection on the asserted ground and the prosecutor's questioning did not disclose whether outstanding warrants existed.
7. Denny waived reliance on all but one of the asserted improprieties by failing to object, and the one preserved objection did not establish prosecutorial misconduct or a deliberate attempt to mislead the jury.
8. The trial court properly instructed the jury on conspiracy because the evidence authorized a finding that the defendants conspired to burglarize Kevin Rainwater's home.
9. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Denny guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Denny was prejudiced by being tried jointly with his brother and was therefore entitled to severance.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Denny's pretrial and mid-trial motions for a change of venue based on publicity.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying additional peremptory challenges.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial or conducting further inquiry after a newspaper article about the defendants appeared during trial.
5. Whether evidence of two independent crimes was improperly admitted as bad-character or similar-transaction evidence.
6. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting testimony concerning a possible outstanding warrant in violation of a trial-court ruling.
7. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument contained prejudicial misconduct and misstatements of evidence.
8. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on conspiracy.
9. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Denny's convictions.

Disposition

affirmed