Mangrum v. State, 285 Ga. 676

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Jamerson Mangrum’s convictions for felony murder, aggravated child molestation, rape-related offenses, and evidence-concealment offenses. The court rejected or found waived challenges concerning the voluntariness of police statements, Miranda warnings, expert testimony, lesser-included-offense and accident instructions, sentencing, and jury exhibits. The case was remanded for a hearing on Mangrum’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Mangrum guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder and the other offenses.
2. Mangrum's statements were admissible because they were not induced by an impermissible hope of benefit or fear of injury, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding them voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
3. The absence of a second Miranda warning after the two-hour break did not require suppression because Mangrum had previously been advised of and waived his rights and the interviews were part of a continuous interrogation.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after the forensic-pathology expert testified that the death was a homicide.
5. The trial court properly refused to give an involuntary-manslaughter instruction based on statutory rape.
6. Mangrum was not entitled to an accident instruction because he denied committing any act that caused the victim's death.
7. The 2006 statutory amendment did not require reversal of Mangrum's aggravated-child-molestation convictions or the related vacated felony-murder verdicts.
8. The trial court did not err by denying the motion for new trial without a hearing because Mangrum did not request a hearing.
9. The trial court properly instructed that the victim's age could supply the against-her-will element of forcible rape.
10. The claim concerning the written statements going out with the jury was not preserved because Mangrum made no objection, and he failed to show reversible error in any event.
11. The aggravated-child-molestation convictions did not merge for sentencing purposes because the corresponding felony-murder verdicts were vacated and no sentences were imposed on those felony-murder counts.
12. Mangrum's ineffective-assistance claim was raised at the earliest practicable moment and required remand to the trial court for a hearing limited to that claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Mangrum's convictions.
2. Whether Mangrum's statements to police were involuntary because they were induced by hope of benefit or fear of injury under OCGA § 24-3-50.
3. Whether statements made after a two-hour break in questioning had to be suppressed because police did not repeat the Miranda warnings.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial based on an expert's opinion that the victim's death was a homicide.
5. Whether Mangrum was entitled to an involuntary-manslaughter jury instruction based on statutory rape as the underlying misdemeanor.
6. Whether Mangrum was entitled to an accident-defense jury instruction.
7. Whether the 2006 amendment to Georgia's aggravated-child-molestation statute required reversal of his convictions or related felony-murder verdicts.
8. Whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for new trial without conducting a hearing.
9. Whether the trial court improperly charged that the victim's age supplied the against-her-will element of forcible rape.
10. Whether admitting Mangrum's written statements into the jury room constituted reversible error.
11. Whether the aggravated-child-molestation convictions merged into the vacated felony-murder convictions for sentencing purposes.
12. Whether Mangrum's ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally barred or should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed