Case Law Shaw v. State

Shaw v. State

Document Cited Authorities (24) Cited in (17) Related

Steven Mitchell Harrison, Oconee Circuit Public Defender Oconee Circuit, 5120 Norman Street, Eastman, Georgia 31023, for Appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Christopher M. Carr, Matthew David O’Brien, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta Georgia 30334, Timothy Grady Vaughn, Keely Kight Pitts, Oconee Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 1027, Eastman, Georgia, for Appellee.

Bethel, Justice.

Earnest Shaw appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of malice murder and concealing the death of another in connection with the death of Elizabeth Richardson.1 On appeal, Shaw argues that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts because the State’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the State did not exclude all reasonable theories of the crimes other than Shaw’s guilt. Shaw also argues that the trial court erred by requiring Shaw to proceed pro se during a pre-trial hearing on the admission of certain evidence and by admitting certain evidence at trial. He further contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Finding no grounds for reversal, we affirm.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence .

(a) Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial showed the following. Leanne Shaw, Shaw’s daughter, lived with Shaw in 2007. During that time, Shaw and Elizabeth were dating. Elizabeth lived up the street from Shaw in her mother’s house.

While Leanne was living with Shaw, she witnessed a number of arguments between Shaw and Elizabeth and saw Shaw strike Elizabeth on two occasions. On the morning of September 1, 2007, Leanne witnessed a "loud" argument between Shaw and Elizabeth in the house. Shaw and Elizabeth went out into the yard and continued arguing. At one point, Leanne witnessed Shaw grab Elizabeth by the hair, push her to the ground, and slap her. Shaw then picked up a crowbar and, while Elizabeth was lying on the ground on her back, threw the crowbar to the ground beside her. Shaw then said, "Next time I won’t miss." Leanne testified that, shortly after that, sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon, Shaw and Elizabeth left Shaw’s house in Shaw’s silver Chevrolet truck. Shaw returned to the house without Elizabeth about 15 to 20 minutes later. Leanne never saw or heard from Elizabeth again.

After Shaw returned to the house, he went back to his bedroom, changed clothes, took the sheets off his bed, asked Leanne to make the bed, and left the house. Leanne testified that Shaw put the bed sheets in his truck and drove away. Leanne did not see Shaw again until the next day. Leanne also testified that Shaw had a habit of keeping his vehicles clean. She testified that a man named "Blind" came to Shaw’s house every weekend to wash both of Shaw’s trucks. According to Leanne, Shaw did not normally clean the trucks himself.

The State also presented the testimony of Brandon Shaw, Shaw’s son. Brandon was also at Shaw’s house on the morning of September 1. He heard Shaw and Elizabeth arguing and left the house. Brandon never saw or heard from Elizabeth again. The next day, Shaw called Brandon because he had run out of gas. Brandon brought gas over to Shaw and noticed bed sheets in Shaw’s Chevrolet truck, which he found unusual. Brandon also testified that Shaw was very "picky" about his trucks and that only a man named Isaiah "Blind" Miles cleaned them. However, the day after Brandon brought gas to Shaw to fill up his truck, Brandon saw Shaw cleaning his truck.

Duel Davis testified that, on September 6, he was hunting in a heavily wooded area in Montgomery County less than 10 miles from Shaw’s house when he found a dead body, which was later identified as Elizabeth. After finding the body, Davis called 911.

Special Agent Todd Crosby, a crime-scene specialist from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, arrived later that afternoon and began processing the area around Elizabeth’s body, which was naked. In that area, Crosby found purge fluid that had leaked from Elizabeth’s body as it began to decompose. Based on the body’s state of decomposition, Crosby determined that the body had been at the location in the woods for several days when it was discovered. Crosby also observed holes on both sides of Elizabeth’s skull, which he attributed to Elizabeth having been struck on both sides of her head.

Crosby testified that, on September 11, after Elizabeth’s body was removed from the crime scene, he performed luminol testing at the scene and detected trace amounts of blood and bodily fluids there and in the area leading back up to a nearby dirt road. Crosby performed additional luminol testing at Shaw’s house. There, several areas in the backyard and the interior cabs of two trucks owned by Shaw yielded a positive reaction for the presence of blood.

GBI Special Agent Catherine Sapp also participated in the crime-scene investigation by assisting Crosby in searching for blood in Shaw’s backyard. She detected a blood stain on a pair of shoes, and the chemical test she performed indicated that it was human blood. She then performed luminol testing on three vehicles, each of which reacted positively for the presence of blood. She and Crosby also detected the presence of blood in a dirt sample and on a rug, both of which were found in Shaw’s backyard.

The medical examiner, Dr. Mark Koponen, testified that Elizabeth’s body was received for autopsy on September 7 "extensively decomposed," "partially skeletonized," and "partially mummified." Dr. Koponen noted two "large" holes in her skull, photographs of which were admitted and shown to the jury. One hole was "slightly larger" than the other, but both holes were oval in shape with fractures radiating from each wound. Based on the nature of the wounds, Dr. Koponen ruled out a gunshot as the source of the injuries. Dr. Koponen testified that the trauma likely caused portions of the skull to be driven into Elizabeth’s brain, causing "tremendous brain damage and bleeding," which resulted in her death. Dr. Koponen testified that Elizabeth died either instantly or "very, very shortly after receiving her injury." He also stated that the condition of her body at the time of the autopsy was consistent with her having been dead "most, if not all" of the time between September 1 and September 6, when her body was discovered. He stated that the level of decomposition was not consistent with Elizabeth’s body being exposed to the elements for only one or two days.

The jury also heard testimony from Dr. Frederick Snow, a forensic anthropologist who assisted Dr. Koponen. Dr. Snow’s examination established that the two wounds to Elizabeth’s skull were the result of non-specific blunt force trauma and appeared to be caused by a "circular implement" of some kind. Dr. Snow testified that, at the time Elizabeth’s remains were brought into the lab for autopsy on September 7, she had been dead "probably a week, somewhere along in there. Certainly not just a day or two."

The State also called GBI Special Agent Lindsey Giddens to testify. Giddens assisted in the investigation of Elizabeth’s death and executed a search warrant at Shaw’s house. During that search, Giddens found a burn pile behind the house containing a burned piece of a flip-flop sandal, two metal rings, a burned piece of a blue towel, and a burned metal shaft of a hammer, all of which were seized by GBI. Giddens also testified that, during her search of Shaw’s residence, she entered Shaw’s workshop and saw that Shaw had gas cans, hammers, and numerous tools.

The State also called GBI Special Agent Kendra Lynn, who testified that, on the afternoon of September 6, she responded to the area where Elizabeth’s body was discovered. Elizabeth’s body was not visible from the road, but was found in a wooded area off a dirt road in a rural part of Montgomery County.

Lynn testified that the body at the scene was not identified as Elizabeth until the following afternoon, September 7. Later that day, Lynn briefly spoke with Elizabeth’s mother, Barbara Blaxton. Lynn and two deputies from the Toombs County Sheriff’s Office then met with and interviewed Shaw at his residence. Lynn testified that Shaw was not under arrest during that interview.

In the interview, Lynn and Shaw discussed Shaw’s relationship with Elizabeth. Shaw told Lynn that Elizabeth was his girlfriend, that they had a sexual relationship, and that she regularly stayed at his house. Shaw indicated that he and Elizabeth "had a few rough spots" that were alcohol-related but that they always worked them out. In that conversation, Shaw told Lynn that he smoked Marlboro 100 cigarettes.

Shaw also told Lynn that, around 9:30 a.m. on September 1, Elizabeth called him and asked him to pick her up from her mother’s house. Shaw stated that he then picked Elizabeth up on the side of the road as she walked toward his house. Elizabeth was wearing sandals at the time. Shaw told Lynn that he and Elizabeth went back to his house and had sex, then he took her back home. He also told Lynn that Elizabeth sometimes tried to sneak out of her house to see him because her mother did not like Shaw. Shaw said this had happened recently and that he suffered cuts to his arms when Elizabeth broke her bedroom window while trying to sneak out of the house to see Shaw while her former boyfriend, Eric Peavy, was visiting.

Lynn testified that she and the deputies spoke with Shaw for about 20 minutes before he asked why they were there. When Lynn informed Shaw that Elizabeth’s body had been found and that they were investigating her death, Shaw "became upset very briefly" but then continued talking. He never asked what happened to Elizabeth or where her body had been located. He then told Lynn that he had seen Elizabeth the afternoon of September 1 ...

5 cases
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Treadaway v. State
"...unreasonable way, considering all of the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 250-51 (6), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) (citation omitted). "This requires a defendant to overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel's performance was adequa..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Young v. State
"...the "Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings"); see also Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 246, 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019).Additionally, because the record shows that Detective Kenck properly advised Young of his Miranda rights and later told..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Snipes v. State
"...unreasonable way, considering all of the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 250-51 (6), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) (citation omitted). "[S]atisfaction of this test is a difficult endeavor. Simply because a defendant has shown that his trial..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2019
State v. Beard
"..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2021
Thomas v. State
"...not prejudiced as a result, because of the strength of the direct evidence that he was one of the shooters. See Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 251 (6) (a), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) ; Bryant v. State , 306 Ga. 687, 696 (2) (b), 832 S.E.2d 826 (2019).(c) Failure to object to an expert witness's te..."

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
5 cases
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Treadaway v. State
"...unreasonable way, considering all of the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 250-51 (6), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) (citation omitted). "This requires a defendant to overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel's performance was adequa..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Young v. State
"...the "Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings"); see also Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 246, 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019).Additionally, because the record shows that Detective Kenck properly advised Young of his Miranda rights and later told..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2020
Snipes v. State
"...unreasonable way, considering all of the circumstances and in light of prevailing professional norms." Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 250-51 (6), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) (citation omitted). "[S]atisfaction of this test is a difficult endeavor. Simply because a defendant has shown that his trial..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2019
State v. Beard
"..."
Document | Georgia Supreme Court – 2021
Thomas v. State
"...not prejudiced as a result, because of the strength of the direct evidence that he was one of the shooters. See Shaw v. State , 307 Ga. 233, 251 (6) (a), 835 S.E.2d 279 (2019) ; Bryant v. State , 306 Ga. 687, 696 (2) (b), 832 S.E.2d 826 (2019).(c) Failure to object to an expert witness's te..."

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