Davis v. State

1

DAVIS v. THE STATE.

No. A23A1751

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Third Division

December 22, 2023

DOYLE P. J., GOBEIL, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER.

FULLER, Senior Judge.

A jury found Edward Eugene Davis guilty of rape, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Davis appeals, arguing that his convictions for rape and aggravated assault were repugnant in light of his acquittal on other charges. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his false imprisonment conviction, and he contends the trial court erred in its jury instruction on that crime. Finally, he contends that the State's closing argument was improper. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

Viewed favorably to the verdict,^[1] the evidence shows that, on August 24 2020, the victim - who was homeless - was walking toward the Homeless Authority, pulling her suitcases, when Davis approached her and offered to help. The two proceeded to the Homeless Authority, but it was too late in the day to find the victim housing, and she was asked to return the next day. Davis then told the victim she could stay with him and his girlfriend.

The victim walked with Davis to his tent at an encampment. Although no girlfriend was present, the victim entered the tent with Davis. Once inside, Davis began drinking. The two began a cordial conversation, but "things [took] a turn[.]" Davis held a knife to the victim's throat and warned her not to make a sound. Davis then pushed the victim backwards and choked her with one hand while removing her clothes with his other hand. Davis choked and raped the victim multiple times. He also placed his mouth on the victim's vagina. At one point between assaults, Davis left the tent to buy more beer; but the victim was afraid to leave because she did not know how long Davis would be gone. Later, Davis approached the victim from behind as if to penetrate her anally, and the victim cried and begged him to stop. The victim then asked to go to the bathroom, grabbed her purse, and fled, leaving behind her suitcases, which contained all of her belongings.

The next morning, the victim returned to the Homeless Authority, and she told one of the workers about the assault. Police were called and upon arrival discovered the victim, who was shaking and crying. The victim told the police where to find the encampment and described both Davis and his tent. Police traveled to the campsite and found the victim's suitcases. Davis was still inside the tent in a state of undress.

The victim was taken to a rape crisis center where she underwent a forensic examination. The nurse who examined the victim noted "redness and bruising" on her neck, arms, hands, back, legs, and abdomen. A pelvic exam showed bruising and an ulceration on the victim's genitalia.

Davis was arrested and charged with three counts of rape, one count of aggravated sodomy for placing his mouth on the victim's vagina, two counts of aggravated assault by placing his hands around the victim's neck and applying pressure, one count of aggravated assault for brandishing a knife, and one count of false imprisonment. At trial, Davis took the stand and denied raping, assaulting, or imprisoning the victim; according to Davis, the two had consensual sexual relations.

Based on the evidence, the jury found Davis guilty of one count of rape, one count of aggravated assault by choking, and false imprisonment. The jury acquitted him of the remaining charges.

1. On appeal, Davis contends that his convictions for rape and aggravated assault are "repugnant verdicts" in light of his acquittals on the additional counts of those same offenses. Although Davis was charged with multiple separate counts of those offenses, the indictment used identical language for each rape charge and identical language for each aggravated assault charge. According to Davis, the fact the jury acquitted him of the exact same charge precludes a finding of guilt on any charge. We disagree.

The crux of Davis's argument appears to be that the verdicts are inherently contradictory. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in McElrath v. State, there are three main categories of contradictory verdicts: (1) inconsistent verdicts, (2) mutually exclusive verdicts, and (3) repugnant verdicts. McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104, 108 (2) (839 S.E.2d 573) (2020). At issue here is whether Davis's convictions were repugnant.^[2] A truly repugnant verdict is rare. State v. Owens, 312 Ga. 212, 217 (1) (b) (862 S.E.2d 125) (2021). Repugnant verdicts "occur when, in order to find the defendant not guilty on one count and guilty on another, the jury must make affirmative findings shown on the record that cannot logically or legally exist at the same time." McElrath, 308 Ga. at 111 (2) (c) (emphasis omitted). For example, in McElrath, the defendant stabbed his mother to death, and he was charged with both malice murder and felony murder. The jury found the defendant legally insane with respect to malice murder and acquitted him of that offense, but determined that he was guilty but mentally ill with respect to felony murder. Because it was impossible to have different mental states at the same time, the Supreme Court found the verdicts repugnant. Id. at 111112 (2) (c).

Much like a repugnant verdict, an inconsistent verdict involves an alleged inconsistency between guilty and not guilty verdicts against a defendant or defendants that cannot be logically reconciled. However, because the inconsistent verdict rule has been abolished, a defendant cannot attack as inconsistent a jury verdict of guilty on one count and not guilty on a different count as a legitimate means of having his or her conviction reversed. This is the case because it is not generally within the court's power to make inquiries into the jury's deliberations, or to speculate about the reasons for any inconsistency between guilty and not guilty verdicts. Appellate courts cannot know and should not speculate why a jury acquitted on one offense and convicted on another offense. The reason could be an error by the jury in its consideration or it could be mistake, compromise, or lenity. Stated another way, it is imprudent and unworkable to allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent verdicts on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity, but of some error that worked against them. Such an individualized assessment of the reason for the inconsistency would be based either on pure speculation, or would require inquiries into the jury's deliberations that the courts generally will not undertake.

Carter v. State, 298 Ga. 867, 868-869 (785 S.E.2d 274) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted).

To distinguish between a repugnant versus merely inconsistent verdict, we ascertain whether the jury's verdict plainly and palpably demonstrates the jury's reasoning in reaching an illogical conclusion. If any speculation at all is required, the verdict is merely inconsistent rather than repugnant. See Carter, supra. And a verdict will not be found repugnant simply "because it involves a finding of guilt and an acquittal on the same offense based on the same set of facts[.]" Smith v. State, 348 Ga.App. 643, 646 (1) (824 S.E.2d 382) (2019).

Contrary to Davis's contention on appeal, the verdicts against him - although arguably inconsistent - were not repugnant. The verdict here does not plainly demonstrate the jury's reasoning in finding Davis guilty of one count of rape and aggravated assault while acquitting him of the remaining charges of rape and aggravated assault. Perhaps the jury felt that compromise was in order, or perhaps the jury misapprehended the law. Where, as here, we are left to speculate regarding the jury's rationale, the verdict will be deemed inconsistent rather than repugnant. See Wright v. State, 365 Ga.App. 415, 423 (1) (878 S.E.2d 751) (2022). Accordingly, this argument presents no basis for reversal. See id.

2. Davis also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for false imprisonment. According to Davis, there was no evidence that he physically restrained the victim; rather, "any physical actions restraining the victim were acts constituting the elements of the offenses of rape and aggravated assault."

When we consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and inquire only whether any rational trier of fact might find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Under this review, we must put aside any questions about conflicting evidence, the credibility of witnesses, or the weight of the evidence, leaving the resolution of such things to the discretion of the trier of fact. Accordingly, the jury's verdict will be upheld as long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case.

Wilkey v. State, 368 Ga.App. 238, 240 (1) (889 S.E.2d 427) (2023) (footnotes and punctuation omitted).

"A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests confines, or detains such person without legal authority." OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). "As the statute does not require that the imprisonment be for a...