Manley v. State, 284 Ga. 840

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Charles Travis Manley’s conviction and life sentence for the malice murder of Vieng Phoxivay. The court rejected claims concerning late disclosure of a knife’s seizure location, improper witness opinion and prosecutorial bolstering, exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert testimony, and jury coercion. A dissent would have found reversible error in the prosecutor’s closing argument and the exclusion of the eyewitness-identification expert.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not err in denying Manley's motion for mistrial or new trial based on the late discovery and admission of the property receipt because Manley did not contend that the knife evidence was exculpatory, and the record showed that his defense was not wholly destroyed.
2. The trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a mistrial after an investigator opined that Manley was responsible for the murder because the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony and thereby excluded it from consideration.
3. The prosecutor's argument that investigators and the prosecutor would not jeopardize their careers to frame Manley was a permissible response to defense accusations and did not constitute improper bolstering.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness-identification reliability because the State presented substantial corroborating evidence beyond the eyewitness identifications.
5. The trial court did not improperly coerce the jury by stating that both sides would like to have a verdict if possible, and Manley's challenge to that statement was waived because he made no contemporaneous objection.
6. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Manley guilty of malice murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial or new trial after the State introduced a late-discovered property receipt showing where a knife had been seized.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after an investigator stated that it had become apparent Manley was responsible for the murder, despite the court's curative instruction.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly bolstered State witnesses during closing argument by arguing that investigators and the prosecutor would not risk their careers to frame Manley.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
5. Whether the trial court coerced a deadlocked jury into reaching a verdict and whether the claim was preserved for appellate review.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Manley's malice-murder conviction.

Disposition

affirmed