Case Law Gee v. State

Gee v. State

Document Cited Authorities (8) Cited in (1) Related

Robert David Wolf, Norcross, for Appellant.

Flynn Duncan Broady Jr., District Attorney, Amelia Greeson Pray, Marietta, Linda Jeanne Dunikoski, John Stuart Melvin, Decatur, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.

Colvin, Judge.

After a jury trial, Antonio Maurice Gee was convicted of burglary in the first degree, aggravated battery (2 counts), aggravated assault (4 counts), armed robbery (2 counts), aggravated stalking, false imprisonment (2 counts), cruelty to children in the first degree (2 counts), and cruelty to children in the third degree (2 counts). Gee appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support his two armed robbery convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm Gee's armed robbery conviction under Count 9, but reverse his armed robbery conviction under Count 8 and remand for resentencing.

When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hayes v. State , 292 Ga. 506, 506, 739 S.E.2d 313 (2013). When a conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence,

questions as to reasonableness are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, the appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilty is insupportable as a matter of law.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kiser v. State , 327 Ga. App. 17, 21 (3), 755 S.E.2d 505 (2014).

So viewed, the evidence shows in December 2016, Gee was released from prison where he was incarcerated for an aggravated stalking conviction involving Jessica Crutchfield, the mother of his two children. Two days after his release, Gee spent the morning communicating with Crutchfield over social media. Their communications ended when Gee called Crutchfield to tell her that he was coming to her home to kill her. At about 5:00 p.m. that day, Gee came to Crutchfield's home, which she shared with her two children and 70-year-old grandmother, Janice Bauer. As Crutchfield dialed 911, Gee smashed through the back patio door with an umbrella stand. As soon as Gee broke in the door, the two women took the children upstairs with them to hide in a closet. At the time, B. C. was a medically fragile four-month-old and A. C. was 18 months old.

After searching the house, Gee found the two women and the children hiding in the closet and physically assaulted both women while they used their bodies to protect the children. Gee beat Crutchfield with his fists. When the cell phone that Bauer was holding began to ring, Gee grabbed it and threw it across the room. He then assaulted her by repeatedly punching her in the face so that Bauer required facial reconstructive surgery. Gee broke Bauer's jaw in two places, her palate, both of her cheekbones, and her nose.

Hoping to spare Bauer from further injury, Crutchfield told Gee that she would go with him if he would leave the kids with her grandmother. Gee took Crutchfield and the toddler, A. C., downstairs. Gee then took a taser from Crutchfield and tasered her twice, the second time rendering her unconscious. Gee then went upstairs and attempted to attack Bauer, who was holding the infant, with a small bedside table. Bauer blocked it with her body. During these assaults, Gee also tasered Bauer and the infant, B. C., rendering him unconscious to the point that officers thought that he was dead when they arrived at the scene.

When Crutchfield regained consciousness, Gee was standing over her and punching her. Gee then stabbed Crutchfield in the arm and leg with a butterfly knife that belonged to her and was attached to her car keys. Crutchfield testified that she believed that she had left her keys downstairs, and that at the time, the butterfly knife was attached to the key ring. Crutchfield screamed when it appeared that Gee was attempting to stab her daughter, A. C., but he stabbed her in the leg instead as she moved to protect the child. Police officers then kicked the door in. Crutchfield and A. C. were taken outside while officers cleared the first level of the house. As they were about to go upstairs, Bauer came downstairs with the unconscious infant, B. C., in her arms. As a result of Gee's assaults, Crutchfield sustained a broken nose and a fractured jaw, and lost multiple teeth.

After the victims were evacuated, the police withdrew from the home and a five-hour standoff occurred before Gee surrendered. Officers then searched the house and discovered the butterfly knife on a counter of the downstairs bathroom. After being Mirandized , Gee stated that he could not remember anything that happened and that he suffered from blackouts.

On December 13, 2016, Tonya Bauer, Crutchfield's aunt, found Crutchfield's car keys, two cell phones belonging to Crutchfield, a cell phone belonging to Bauer, three of Bauer's credit cards, Bauer's smart watch and Crutchfield's Department of Corrections identification card hidden underneath a hope chest in the garage. The police saw what they believed was blood on the back of a car in the garage when they arrived to collect the evidence. Bauer testified that she generally kept her car keys and credit cards in her purse in her bedroom and her smart watch in a dresser drawer. Both Crutchfield and Bauer denied that they placed their items in the garage. Neither Crutchfield nor Bauer saw Gee take the items. Gee did not testify at trial.

1. In several related enumerations, Gee argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and motion for new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for armed robbery (Count 8). Gee argues that there was no evidence to show that Gee used the knife to effectuate the taking of the car keys. We agree.

Gee was charged with armed robbery in Count 8 of the indictment: "with the intent to commit a theft, did unlawfully take car keys, property of Jessica Crutchfield, from the immediate presence of Jessica Crutchfield, by the use of a knife, an offensive weapon." Armed robbery occurs when the defendant, "with intent to commit theft, ... takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon." OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). "The State therefore was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Gee's] use of the [knife] occurred prior to or contemporaneously with the taking" of the keys. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harrington v. State , 300 Ga. 574, 577 (2) (a), 797 S.E.2d 107 (2017). See also Attaway v. State , 332 Ga. App. 375, 377 (1) (a), 772 S.E.2d 821 (2015) (evidence insufficient to support an armed robbery conviction because defendant had already taken possession of laptop before brandishing weapon to effectuate his escape).

The evidence at trial showed that Crutchfield testified that she believed that she had left her knife, still attached to her car keys, downstairs before Gee entered the home. The evidence showed that Gee entered the home and rummaged around...

1 cases
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2024
Fraga v. State
"...supports two equally reasonable hypotheses." Fox v. State, 289 Ga. 34, 37 (1) (b), 709 S,E.2d 202 (2011); Gee v. State, 360 Ga. App. 793, 796 (1), 861 S.E.2d 634 (2021). On the other hand, if the evidence only suggests one reasonable hypothesis, the evidence has been found to be sufficient...."

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 – 2024
Fraga v. State
"...supports two equally reasonable hypotheses." Fox v. State, 289 Ga. 34, 37 (1) (b), 709 S,E.2d 202 (2011); Gee v. State, 360 Ga. App. 793, 796 (1), 861 S.E.2d 634 (2021). On the other hand, if the evidence only suggests one reasonable hypothesis, the evidence has been found to be sufficient...."

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