Case Law Gobert v. State

Gobert v. State

Document Cited Authorities (23) Cited in (9) Related

Karen H. Brouse, for appellant.

Christopher A. Arnt, District Attorney, John W. Franklin, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Rosenwasser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Bethel, Justice.

In May 2016, a Walker County jury found Michael James Gobert guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Johnny Montgomery and the aggravated assaults of Edrius Putnam and Deisman Harrison. On appeal, Gobert argues that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; the trial court erred by excluding Gobert from bench conferences; the trial court erred by failing to require the court reporter to transcribe jury selection and the charge conference; and the trial court erred by failing to rebuke the prosecutor for allegedly improper statements made during closing argument or grant a mistrial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.1

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. At around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2015, Nicole Carroll, Gobert's adult step-daughter, invited both Harrison and Montgomery over to her mobile home, which was adjacent to Gobert's home and on his property. Harrison and Montgomery invited Putnam to join them, and the three men arrived at Carroll's mobile home together. Upon their arrival, the group began drinking alcohol, and Harrison, Montgomery, and Carroll began to engage in sexual activity as a group, as they had done on prior occasions. After Harrison and Montgomery exited Carroll's bedroom, Putnam entered and began having sex with Carroll. However, Carroll did not permit Putnam to continue their sexual activity. Putnam then became angry with Carroll, called her a "b****," pushed her, and grabbed her throat.

Upon hearing the commotion in the bedroom, Harrison and Montgomery entered to assist Carroll and "de-escalate the situation." Harrison and Montgomery grabbed Putnam and tried to remove him from Carroll's home. Putnam, however, resisted. He continued punching at Carroll, so she hit him with a pool cue. When Harrison and Montgomery finally got Putnam outside the home, Putnam picked up a dehumidifier on Carroll's porch and threw it at Carroll, striking her in the face.

Harrison and Montgomery managed to get Putnam into Montgomery's car with the intention of leaving the property. Montgomery sat in the driver's seat. As the car began pulling away, Gobert and his wife emerged from their home next door, having heard the disturbance at Carroll's home. Upon exiting his home, Gobert began firing toward the occupants of the car. As Montgomery tried to drive away, Gobert continued firing. The car hit a shed on Gobert's property and became stuck.

Putnam exited the car and ran into the woods after the car crashed into the shed, but Harrison and Montgomery were unable to escape. After Gobert began firing at the vehicle, Harrison hid behind a child's car seat in the backseat. He heard Montgomery say, "I've been shot," before Montgomery slumped down over the steering wheel.

Harrison then saw Gobert run toward the car carrying a gun. When he reached the car, Gobert pointed the gun at Harrison and instructed him to get out and get on his knees. Harrison said, "Please don't kill me, sir," and then asked Gobert if Montgomery was okay. Gobert replied that Montgomery was unconscious and may not be alive. Gobert held Harrison at gunpoint until law enforcement officers arrived. While holding Harrison at gunpoint on the ground, Gobert told him, "I should shoot you, n*****."

Four neighbors reported hearing gunshots. After the shooting, Misty Sanchez and another neighbor, William Swisher, heard Harrison "beg for his life." Another neighbor called 911.

When police officers arrived in response to the call, they found Gobert and his wife holding handguns and standing over Harrison, who was on his hands and knees. Officers also noticed that the car that had struck the shed was still running. Harrison advised the police officers that Montgomery was inside the car. The police officers then found Montgomery slumped over the center console with a gunshot wound to the head. He later died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

As officers were attending to Montgomery, Putnam emerged from the woods behind the property, shouting, "I'm a fireman. Don't shoot!" Officers noticed that Putnam was walking with a limp. The police later learned that Putnam had been shot in the leg when he was a passenger in the car, but a key in his pocket had redirected the bullet, leaving him with only a minor leg injury.

At the scene, the officers also spoke with Carroll, who had "bloody marks" on her face. During their investigation, the officers opened the door to the police car where Gobert was being detained. Before the officers said anything to him, Gobert said, "My life is over, and I messed up." After receiving Miranda2 warnings and signing an acknowledgment and waiver of his rights at the police station, Gobert told detectives that earlier in the evening he awoke to voices outside. He looked out and saw "a black man" arguing with Carroll. Gobert told the police that he yelled, "Halt or I'll shoot," and that Putnam responded, "If you shoot me, you'll get the murder charge." Gobert responded to Putnam, "I don't think so, you came onto my property starting this trouble."

Gobert admitted that he shot at the car several times. When asked why, he said that when he fired at the car, he did not know if Carroll had been injured or know any details of the argument. He told the detectives that he shot at the people in the car because "they were trespassing and causing trouble."

Gobert asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for the felony murder of Montgomery and the aggravated assaults of Putnam and Harrison. When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, "the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis omitted.) Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). On appeal, "this Court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicting testimony." Mosby v. State , 300 Ga. 450, 452 (1), 796 S.E.2d 277 (2017).

(a) Gobert first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction for felony murder. Gobert was convicted of the felony murder of Montgomery predicated on aggravated assault. Specifically, Count 2 of the indictment alleged that Gobert caused Montgomery's death while in the commission of aggravated assault by shooting Montgomery in the head. Although the trial court properly merged the underlying aggravated assault count (Count 3) for sentencing, we must consider whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding that Gobert committed the aggravated assault because it was the predicate felony for the felony murder. See Casey v. State , 310 Ga. 421, 423 (1), 851 S.E.2d 550, 552-553 (2020).

OCGA § 16-5-1 (c) provides that "[a] person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice." OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2) provides, in relevant part, that "[a] person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults ... [w]ith a deadly weapon[.]" As relevant here, a person commits an assault when he or she "[a]ttempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another[.]" OCGA § 16-5-20 (a).

Eyewitness testimony established that, after Gobert emerged from his home, he shot numerous times into the car occupied by Montgomery, Harrison, and Putnam. Gobert admitted shooting at the men that night, and witnesses at the scene testified that he yelled a threat at them after opening fire. Montgomery was struck in the head by one of the shots and later died.

Gobert argues that the evidence was insufficient in light of the evidence that he acted in self-defense, defense of others, and defense of his property. "When a defendant effectively raises an affirmative defense such as self-defense the State bears the burden of disproving the asserted defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Mosby , 300 Ga. at 451 (1), 796 S.E.2d 277. The State presented evidence that Gobert was not in a position to determine whether and to what extent Carroll was in danger and other evidence that "undermined [Gobert's] claim of self-defense." Martin v. State , 306 Ga. 538, 541 (1), 832 S.E.2d 402 (2019). Further, Gobert shot at the car while the three men were fleeing, and neither Carroll nor the Goberts were in any danger or any imminent threat of harm at that point. See OCGA § 16-3-21 (a) (stating that a person is "justified" in using deadly force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person"); see also OCGA § 16-3-23 (defining ‘‘defense of habitation’’). Gobert's arguments in this regard, like his arguments concerning the reliability of the police investigation and quality of the State's evidence, were matters within the province of the jury to consider and decide. See Lowery v. State , 310 Ga. 360, 362 (1) (a), 851 S.E.2d 538 (2020) ; see also Ferguson v. State , 297 Ga. 342, 344 (1), 773 S.E.2d 749 (2015) (jury was authorized to disbelieve defendant's self-defense theory).

Accordingly, this evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Gobert guilty of aggravated assault and the felony murder of Montgomery predicated on that aggravated assault. See Jackson , 443 U. S. at 319 ...

4 cases
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2022
Prickett v. State
"...that the prosecutor's reference to the redacted portion of the conversation contributed to the verdict. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 312 (4) (a), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (harmless error under OCGA § 17-8-75 where evidence of defendant's guilt was strong and trial court instructed the ju..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2022
Gude v. State
"...sexual advances toward him, but the jury was entitled to reject Gude's self-serving version of the events. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 309 (1) (a), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (evidence was sufficient to support aggravated assault and felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and jury..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2023
Reese v. State
"...defense at trial, "the State bears the burden of disproving the asserted defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 309, 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). Reese's sole defense at trial was self-defense; his theory was that someone shot at him ..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2022
Bland v. State
"...all of which occurred before the judge actually ruled that Bland had waived his right to be present. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 310 (2), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (proceeding at which the jury composition is changed is a critical stage at which the defendant is entitled to be present); ..."

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
4 cases
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2022
Prickett v. State
"...that the prosecutor's reference to the redacted portion of the conversation contributed to the verdict. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 312 (4) (a), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (harmless error under OCGA § 17-8-75 where evidence of defendant's guilt was strong and trial court instructed the ju..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2022
Gude v. State
"...sexual advances toward him, but the jury was entitled to reject Gude's self-serving version of the events. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 309 (1) (a), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (evidence was sufficient to support aggravated assault and felony murder predicated on aggravated assault and jury..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2023
Reese v. State
"...defense at trial, "the State bears the burden of disproving the asserted defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 309, 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). Reese's sole defense at trial was self-defense; his theory was that someone shot at him ..."
Document | Georgia Court of Appeals – 2022
Bland v. State
"...all of which occurred before the judge actually ruled that Bland had waived his right to be present. See Gobert v. State , 311 Ga. 305, 310 (2), 857 S.E.2d 647 (2021) (proceeding at which the jury composition is changed is a critical stage at which the defendant is entitled to be present); ..."

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