White v. State

293 Ga. 523 (2013) · Supreme Court of Georgia · September 9, 2013

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court held that the trial court applied the legal-sufficiency standard rather than exercising its discretionary role as a “thirteenth juror” when considering White’s general grounds for a new trial. The court vacated the denial of the motion for new trial and remanded for reconsideration under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, declining to address White’s remaining claims.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
Blackwell, Justice; All the Justices
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
September 9, 2013
Procedural posture
White appealed his convictions for murder and other crimes and the denial of his motion for new trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that the trial court applied the legal-sufficiency standard rather than the proper standard for evaluating the general grounds of a motion for new trial.
Standard of review
For legal sufficiency, the court applied Jackson v. Virginia, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asking whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For the general grounds of a motion for new trial, the trial judge must independently weigh the evidence, assess witness credibility and conflicts, and exercise broad discretion as a thirteenth juror.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia; precedential.
Parties
Adrian White v. State
Disposition
vacated

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of reviewevidence

Practice areas

Georgia criminal lawcriminal appellate proceduremotions for new trialevidence sufficiency

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain White's convictions under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
  2. Whether the trial court applied the correct standard when ruling on the general grounds of White's motion for new trial.
  3. Whether the denial of the motion for new trial should be vacated and remanded for reconsideration under the proper thirteenth-juror standard.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was legally sufficient because a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that White committed the crimes of which he was convicted.
  2. The trial court applied the wrong standard by evaluating whether the evidence was legally sufficient rather than weighing the evidence and exercising its discretion as a thirteenth juror.
  3. The denial of White's motion for new trial must be vacated and the case remanded with direction for the trial court to reconsider the general grounds under the proper standard and exercise its discretion as a thirteenth juror.

Key quotations

In exercising that discretion, the trial judge must consider some of the things that she cannot when assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, including any conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence. (at 525)
Nothing in the order of the trial court indicates to us that the trial court performed its “duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence” in its consideration of the general grounds. (at 525)
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. (at 526)

Factual background

On September 8, 2004, Anthony Jones went to an apartment building where Adrian White, Marquez Webb, and Demario Thornton were present. After a heated exchange, Jones began walking back to his vehicle, and, according to Thornton and Webb, White took a gun from Thornton, shot Jones in the back, struck him with the gun, and joined Thornton and Webb in kicking Jones. Jones was unarmed and later died from the gunshot wound.

Procedural history

White was convicted by a Fulton County jury of malice murder and other crimes arising from the shooting death of Anthony Jones. The trial court denied White's motion for new trial after multiple amendments. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia independently reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence, found it sufficient, but vacated the denial of the motion for new trial because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as a thirteenth juror.

Remand instructions

The trial court must reconsider White's general grounds for a new trial, apply the standards in OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, weigh the evidence, and exercise its discretion as a thirteenth juror.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…