Case Law Evans v. State

Evans v. State

Document Cited Authorities (18) Cited in (3) Related

James Kenneth Luttrell, Woodstock, for Appellant.

Brian K. Fortner, District Attorney, Emily K. Richardson, Bonnie K. Smith, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.

McMillian, Judge.

Stephanie Evans appeals from the denial of her motion for new trial after a jury convicted her of one count of involuntary manslaughter1 in connection with the death of Rodney Graham ("RG"),2 an inmate who died while incarcerated at the jail run by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. Evans asserts on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Although we find that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Evans’ actions and inactions constituted reckless conduct, the alleged crime underlying the charge of involuntary manslaughter, we find that the State failed to present evidence sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Evans’ reckless conduct caused RG’s death. Accordingly, we reverse.

1. When this Court considers the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, "we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we inquire only whether any rational trier of fact might find beyond a reasonable doubt from that evidence that the defendant is guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted." (Citation omitted.) Walker v. State , 296 Ga. 161, 163 (1), 766 S.E.2d 28 (2014). See also Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Under this review, "we 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." White v. State , 293 Ga. 523, 523 (1), 753 S.E.2d 115 (2013). Rather, "in every case the jury is the arbiter of credibility including as to the defendant’s explanation, and the jury is the body which resolves conflicting evidence, and where the jury has done so, the appellate court cannot merely substitute its judgment for that of the jury." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lowery v. State , 264 Ga. App. 655, 658 (3), 592 S.E.2d 102 (2003). Nevertheless, "it is axiomatic that the evidentiary burden in a criminal prosecution is upon the State to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State , 272 Ga. 900, 902 (2), 537 S.E.2d 80 (2000). And when the State fails to carry this burden, the defendant is entitled to a reversal of his or her conviction. See, e.g., Chestnut v. State , 331 Ga. App. 69, 77, 769 S.E.2d 779 (2015) ; Futch v. State , 316 Ga. App. 376, 380 (1) (a), 730 S.E.2d 14 (2012) ; Brown v. State , 152 Ga. App. 273, 274 (1), 262 S.E.2d 497 (1979).

So viewed, the evidence showed that at the time of RG’s incarceration at the jail, Evans was serving as the supervisor for the medical department for the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. The department’s three other employees were Chad Skinner, Kelli Brown, both EMTs, and Jody Faircloth, a medical assistant, and all four employees worked at the Douglas County jail. Dr. Graham contracted as the medical director for the sheriff’s office, which meant he made limited, regular visits to the jail but was on-call for all medical issues. RG was admitted to the jail for a probation violation on Wednesday, October 28, 2009, and the following Sunday, November 1, he submitted a form requesting medical assistance, stating that he was vomiting, could not keep anything down, and was "really weak." Faircloth, who was on-call that day, visited RG in his cell, and he told her of his symptoms and also that he had a history of kidney stones and infections. Faircloth gave RG medication to treat his symptoms. At around 10:00 p.m. that night, RG called his wife, Cathy Graham, to tell her that he thought he was getting a kidney infection and was concerned that he was not going to get adequate care at the jail.

The next morning, Monday, November 2, Faircloth reported the situation involving RG to Evans, and they arranged for him to come to the medical department for a follow-up. After a urinalysis revealed blood, leukocytes, and bilirubin in RG’s urine, which Evans and Faircloth believed to be indications of an infection, they continued treating RG for nausea and pain and added an antibiotic to treat the infection and Gatorade for hydration. Faircloth and Evans also performed a drug test, which reflected the presence of several illegal drugs in RG’s urine. In the meantime, Cathy had obtained a note from Dr. Vance Boddy, RG’s physician and delivered it to the jail. The note stated that RG had a severe kidney problem and impaired renal function, which caused him to pass multiple kidney stones weekly and required "frequent narcotic administration and medical oversight[.]" Evans acknowledged receiving this note and calling Dr. Boddy’s office for further clarification. During that call, she learned that Dr. Boddy had prescribed Percocet, a narcotic, to treat RG’s condition, and she knew that she was unable to administer narcotics at the jail. Evans made the decision to initiate the protocol for detox by giving RG additional medication and placing him in an isolation room at around 11:00 a.m. with a camera to monitor him.

Cathy had also communicated RG’s concerns to his parents overnight, and his father Ray Graham called the jail Monday morning and spoke to a woman he believed was Evans. Ray told her that RG had serious kidney problems and asked that he receive appropriate help. The woman replied that they knew what was wrong with RG—he was detoxing—and they did not need any help or any medical records. Concerned about this response, Ray sent an e-mail to the division commander overseeing the Douglas County jail, explaining that RG had "a very bad kidney problem" that caused him to pass kidney stones weekly and resulted in frequent, severe kidney infections, requiring hospitalizations due to his kidneys shutting down. Ray stated that he was concerned that RG’s kidneys were in danger of shutting down again, which could endanger his life or his long-term health.3 Evans admitted that she received and read Ray’s e-mail, and after discussing the issues raised in the e-mail and Dr. Boddy’s note with Faircloth, she asked for a release from RG to obtain his medical records from one of the local emergency rooms ("ER"). Evans reviewed these records, which showed that RG had visited the hospital ER on a number of occasions for kidney stones, infections, and renal failure, which sometimes required hospitalization.

The next day, Tuesday, November 3, between 8:05 and 9:00 a.m., Evans visited RG in his isolation cell to give him medicine for nausea, which was the only time she ever visited RG’s cell and the last time she had personal contact with him. Thereafter, she relied on Brown and Skinner, as well as other non-medical jail employees, to monitor RG’s condition; however, the evidence supported that Evans never told any of them that RG suffered from a recurring kidney condition, involving weekly kidney stones and serious infections. Instead, they were told only that RG was detoxing. At around 12:30 that day, Joan Graham, RG’s mother called the sheriff’s office to discuss his condition and to offer to bring RG’s medical records from two hospitals where he had received treatment. However, she was told that the records were not needed; rather, she was told that RG was detoxing. That evening after Deputy Tina Shepherd arrived for her 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift, she noticed that RG was "really weak" and that he had been vomiting and could not keep anything down. Two deputies were required to take him to the shower that night because he was so weak.

Before Deputy Shepherd left the next day, Wednesday, November 4, at around 6:00 a.m., she spoke with Brown about RG’s condition, telling her he was "really sick," weak, and could not keep anything down. About an hour later, during the inmate head count, Deputy Robert Glynn Gale found RG lying face down on the floor, shaking and moaning. Brown was summoned to the cell to check on RG. When Brown took his vital signs, she could not get a blood pressure reading, his oxygen level was extremely low, and his pulse was elevated. Brown testified that based on these observations, she believed RG had experienced a seizure. Deputy Gale testified that he told Brown at the time that he thought RG needed to go to the hospital, but Brown told him that RG was detoxing and did not need to go to the hospital. When Evans arrived for her shift at around 8:00 a.m., Brown told her that she thought RG "had had a seizure, that his boxers were wet, that he was laying face down, on the floor, when [she] first saw him, and that he was slow to arouse," but she reported that he later appeared to have come out of the seizure and become alert and oriented. At around 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., a deputy found RG lying under his bunk and shaking. He notified the medical department, and Evans sent Skinner to check on RG. Skinner found RG lying on the floor of his cell, but he did not take RG’s vital signs because he was in a rush to perform other tasks. However, he asked RG if he wanted to get in his bunk, and RG said "no." Skinner reported these circumstances to Evans. Deputy Gale stated that he continued to check on RG throughout his shift that day and he could see RG lying on his back, on the floor of his cell, with his hands in the air, shaking. Gale testified that on four occasions, he asked Evans and/or Brown to check on him. Although he continued to urge Brown and Evans that RG needed to go to a hospital, they continued to respond that RG was detoxing. After Shepherd returned for her shift that evening at around 6:00 p.m., during the inmate head count, she discovered RG lying on the floor with his hands in the...

1 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2020
Castro-Moran v. State
"...risk that her failure to seek medical treatment for Yessica would endanger her and lead to her death. See Evans v. State , 346 Ga. App. 739, 744-745 (1), 816 S.E.2d 843 (2018) (physical precedent only) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defen..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2020
Castro-Moran v. State
"...risk that her failure to seek medical treatment for Yessica would endanger her and lead to her death. See Evans v. State , 346 Ga. App. 739, 744-745 (1), 816 S.E.2d 843 (2018) (physical precedent only) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defen..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex