Hornbuckle v. State

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Carol Sue Hornbuckle’s convictions for malice murder arising from the stabbing death of Charles Keith Raburn. The court rejected her claims concerning pretrial immunity based on justification, jury instructions on revenge and forcible felony, the general grounds for a new trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly denied Hornbuckle's motion for immunity because the evidence, viewed in the required light, supported a finding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to immunity based on justification.
2. Hornbuckle failed to establish that the trial court treated self-defense and accident as mutually exclusive because the trial court made no explicit ruling to that effect.
3. The trial court properly instructed the jury on revenge because the instruction accurately stated Georgia law and slight evidence supported giving it.
4. The trial court did not commit reversible plain error by failing to define the underlying crimes relevant to justification or the term forcible felony.
5. Hornbuckle abandoned the general grounds under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 by failing to include them in the second amended motion for new trial on which counsel expressly proceeded.
6. Hornbuckle failed to establish ineffective assistance because she did not show deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Hornbuckle's motion for immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 based on her claim of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court improperly treated self-defense and accident as mutually exclusive defenses.
3. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on revenge.
4. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to define the underlying crimes relevant to justification and the term forcible felony.
5. Whether Hornbuckle preserved and established error concerning the general grounds for a new trial under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.
6. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by calling the victim's third ex-wife, failing to object to the victim's supervisor's testimony, and failing to question an expert about the reasonableness of Hornbuckle's conduct.

Disposition

affirmed