State v. Copeland

310 Ga. 345

850 S.E.2d 736

The STATE

v.COPELAND.

The State

v.Scott.

The State

v.Howell.

S20A0820

S20A0821

S20A0822

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: November 2, 2020

Samuel Howard Altman, Kelly J. Weathers, Middle Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, PO Box 590, Swainsboro, Georgia 30401-0590, for Appellant.

Christopher M. Carr, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Amicus Appellant.

Pierce Gloover Blitch, Paul Simon Patterson Williams, Fleming & Nelson, LLP, 631 Ronald Reagan Drive, Suite 201 P.O. Box 2208, Evans, Georgia 30809, for Appellee in S20A0820 and S20A0821.

Shawn Michael Merzlak, Hawk Law Group, 338 Telfair Street, Augusta, Georgia 30901, for Appellee in S20A0822.

Bethel, Justice.

A Washington County grand jury indicted former sheriff's deputies Henry Lee Copeland, Rhett Scott, and Michael Howell for felony murder and other offenses in connection with the death of Eurie Lee Martin. Each defendant sought immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, claiming that his actions resulting in Martin's death were in defense of himself or others. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting immunity to Deputies Copeland, Scott, and Howell, and the State appealed. We determine that, in granting immunity, the trial court made findings of material fact that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions regarding the deputies’ encounter with Martin, conflated principles regarding the reasonable use of force by law enforcement with self-defense and immunity, made unclear findings of material fact with respect to whether any or all of the deputies used force intended or likely to cause death, and did not address the facts pertinent to each of the three deputies individually. For these reasons, we vacate the trial court's ruling and remand the cases for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

1. "On appeal [from an order on a motion under OCGA § 16-3-24.2 ], we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and we [generally] accept the trial court's findings with regard to questions of fact and credibility if there is any evidence to support them." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Green , 288 Ga. 1, 2 (2), 701 S.E.2d 151 (2010). However, the Court "owes no deference to a trial court's factual findings gleaned from a review of a videotape that are not the subject of testimony requiring the trial court's weighing of credibility or resolving of conflicts in the evidence." Clay v. State , 290 Ga. 822, 825 (1) (A) (2) n.1, 725 S.E.2d 260 (2012). This Court conducts a de novo review of a trial court's legal application of OCGA § 16-3-24.2. See Green , 288 Ga. at 2 (2), 701 S.E.2d 151.

In its order granting immunity, the trial court made factual findings based upon the evidence presented at the immunity hearing, which included the testimony of the deputies and other witnesses. In addition, a number of other facts are plainly established by video and audio recordings admitted into evidence at the hearing, which were made before and during the deputies’ encounter with Martin. The trial court's findings are set forth below, as well as facts clearly evident from video and audio recordings, where indicated.

On July 7, 2017, Martin was walking along Deepstep Road in Washington County on a very hot afternoon. Along the way, he walked up the driveway of a home on that two-lane road and requested a drink of water from the homeowner by motioning with a cut-off Coke can that he was carrying. The homeowner, who was concerned by Martin's unkempt appearance, refused Martin's request. Martin continued on his way, but the homeowner called 911 to report Martin, describing him on the 911 recording as a "black man, probably 50-plus-years-old, about 6’3", 220 pounds," and saying that he did not know if Martin was "crazy, drunk, or what."¹ The homeowner did not indicate that Martin approached merely to request water.

Deputy Howell responded to the "suspicious person" call first, observed Martin walking "in the roadway," and attempted to speak with Martin from his patrol car, asking Martin his name and whether Martin was okay. Martin responded by asking, "Who are you?" and then kept walking. Deputy Howell then radioed for backup, activated his vehicle's blue lights, and slowly followed behind Martin. After activating the blue lights, Deputy Howell's dashboard camera recording system, which recorded video and audio, was also activated. The video recording taken from that camera shows Martin walking on the left side of the road, which had no sidewalk, on or near the fog-line.

Deputy Copeland responded to Deputy Howell's call for backup and arrived about two and a half minutes later. Deputy Copeland approached from the other direction on Deepstep Road with his vehicle's blue lights activated and his dashboard camera recording and pulled his vehicle to the side of the road on which Martin was walking, blocking Martin's path. Martin then began to walk across the road. Dashboard camera recordings show that Deputy Copeland exited his vehicle, instructed Martin to "come here," and then repeatedly told Martin to "get out of the road." Martin can be heard on Deputy Copeland's dashboard camera recording saying, "Leave me alone," "I ain't messin’ with you, man" and "I ain't did nothing." At this point, Martin and Deputy Copeland walked down the road and out of frame of both dashboard camera recordings. A few moments later, Deputy Howell is shown approaching Deputy Copeland.

The trial court found, relying on Deputy Howell's and Deputy Copeland's testimony, that during the period in which all three men are out of frame, Martin "thr[ew] down [a] Coke can," took "a defensive stance" and "cl[e]nche[d] his fists," causing Deputies Howell and Copeland to believe that Martin was "about to fight."² The trial court further found that Deputy Copeland "then repeatedly command[ed] Mr. Martin to stop and put his hands behind his back." Deputy Howell then asked Deputy Copeland if he had his TASER,³ and told Deputy Copeland to "tase his a**."⁴ Deputy Copeland told Martin to stop, put his hands behind his back, and get on the ground, and then warned Martin that the deputy would "tase" him if he refused. Martin did not comply with the deputies’ instructions, and Deputy Copeland shot Martin with his TASER.⁵ Martin fell to the ground and then removed a TASER probe from his arm, stood back up, and continued walking away from the deputies. Deputy Howell radioed Deputy Scott for backup and told him that they had shot Martin with the TASER but that he was "still fighting."

On a bystander's video recording, Martin can be seen walking away from the deputies and up a small hill and into the yard of a residence, followed closely by Deputies Howell and Copeland. The trial court found that as the deputies were following Martin, they continued to instruct him to stop and get on the ground or he would be "tased." Martin ignored the deputies’ instructions, walked faster, and then swung at Deputy Copeland when Deputy Copeland moved close to him.⁶

Deputy Scott arrived soon thereafter, and Deputy Howell told Deputy Scott that Martin was "tased" once and it "didn't phase [sic] him." All three deputies encircled Martin, who was, at that point, standing with his arms by his side. Martin did not comply with the deputies’ continued instructions to get on the ground, and Deputy Scott, who was positioned more or less behind Martin, then lifted Martin's shirt and deployed his TASER from a close distance to Martin's back.⁷ According to the trial court, Martin spun "toward Deputy Scott with his arms flailing in an attempt to dislodge the [TASER] probes and possibly to hit Deputy Scott." Martin then fell to the ground. The deputies converged on him, repeatedly commanding him to roll over and show his hands.

The deputies secured a handcuff to Martin's right hand, but his left hand remained tucked under his body as he and the deputies "struggle[d]." Deputies Howell and Copeland⁸ shocked Martin with "drive stuns" using TASERs⁹ and attempted to pry his left arm from under his body to finish handcuffing him, telling him that if he would roll over it would stop. The deputies testified that once Martin's right hand was cuffed, it was imperative to cuff his other hand because a loose handcuffed hand is a potentially lethal threat. After Martin was handcuffed, the tasing ceased. He remained on the ground, and a first responder who arrived at the scene found that Martin did not have a pulse and began performing CPR on him. Martin, however, did not resuscitate and died at the scene.

Deputies Copeland, Howell, and Scott were indicted on two counts each of felony murder and involuntary manslaughter and one count each of false imprisonment, aggravated assault, simple assault, and reckless conduct. They filed motions for immunity under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, which the trial court granted following the hearing and briefing.

2. The State appeals the grant of those motions, arguing that the trial court, in relying upon State v. Hall , 339 Ga. App. 237, 793 S.E.2d 522 (2016), impermissibly expanded the scope of OCGA § 16-3-24.2 beyond the plain meaning of the statute. More specifically, the State argues that the trial court failed to make a finding that the deputies acted in self-defense and that, instead, the trial court conflated the law of self-defense pertinent to OCGA § 16-3-24.2 with the law pertaining to justification set forth in OCGA §§ 16-3-20 (2) and 16-3-20 (4), which is not relevant to the trial court's analysis of the motions under OCGA § 16-3-24.2.

We hold that the trial court made factual findings that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions in support of its grants of immunity in favor of Deputies Copeland, Scott, and Howell under OCGA § 16-3-24.2, conflated legal concepts that are relevant to the immunity motion with concepts that are not relevant,...