English v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 23, 2017
DocketS16A1754
Status200

This text of English v. State (English v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
English v. State, (Ga. 2017).

Opinion

300 Ga. 471 FINAL COPY

S16A1754. ENGLISH v. THE STATE.

MELTON, Presiding Justice.

Following a jury trial, James English appeals his convictions for the

malice murder of Ricky Payne and first degree arson.1 English contends that the

trial court committed plain error by not providing a jury charge regarding the

corroboration of confessions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows

that, on the night of April 25, 2009, emergency personnel discovered Payne’s

burned corpse on a couch in a home that had been set on fire, as well as blotches

of Payne’s blood throughout the house and on the front porch. The State Fire

1 In June 2009, English was indicted for the malice murder of Payne and first degree arson. Following a jury trial ending on June 17, 2010, English was found guilty of both counts. English was sentenced to life imprisonment for malice murder plus ten years to run concurrently for the first degree arson charge. On July 12, 2010, English filed a motion for a new trial, amended on July 6, 2015. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on September 3, 2015, and the trial court denied English’s motion for new trial on March 14, 2016. English filed a timely notice of appeal, and his case, submitted for decision on the briefs, was docketed to the September 2016 term of this Court. Marshal determined that the fire was not accidental, and a GBI medical

examiner concluded that Payne died as a result of blunt force trauma to the head

rather than smoke inhalation or burns. Clothing samples from Payne tested

positive for an ignitable fluid, and both a lighter and lighter fluid were recovered

from the house.

Billy Humphrey owned the house that burned, and, in the hours prior to

the fire, he drank with Payne and Lori Kirkpatrick before leaving to attend a

party at Thomas O’Neal’s house. Shortly after dark, Kirkpatrick also left

Humphrey’s home to attend the same party, and she encountered English in

Humphrey’s yard. Kirkpatrick left after telling English about O’Neal’s party,

and only English and Payne remained in Humphrey’s home.

At about 10:00 p.m., English arrived at O’Neal’s house with his brother,

Eric, and told O’Neal, James Howell, and Michael Carrigg, “I’m here if

anybody’s looking for me. Tell them I’ve been here all the time.” Howell

testified that English told him he had “just killed a man,” that the man had

argued and wrestled with him, and then he “had hit him up side the head with

a bat and laid him on the couch and set him on fire.” English subsequently told

Carrigg similar information, and English proved his claim by showing Howell

2 and Carrigg the crime scene, where the fire department was busy extinguishing

the fire.

On May 6, 2009, Howell and Carrigg called an investigative hotline and

informed the GBI about what English told them on the night of the fire. The pair

met with a GBI agent, relayed the information, and then agreed to wear audio

and video recording devices for investigative purposes. Howell and Carrigg then

met with English. On tape, English stated to Howell and Carrigg that

investigators had no DNA evidence and no eyewitnesses, that English had

withheld telling GBI officers in a prior interview that Howell and Carrigg were

at O’Neal’s house on the night of the fire and murder, that English wanted

O’Neal to tell police English had been at his house at a certain time, and that his

uncle offered to buy him a bus ticket to Minnesota. English also asked Howell

and Carrigg to create an alibi that they saw English at O’Neal’s house at the time

of the house fire. Additionally, at the conclusion of the video, Howell and

Carrigg confirmed to each other, after English had left, that English admitted to

the murder during the course of their meeting. Howell and Carrigg nonetheless

expressed concern about whether GBI investigators would be able to hear the

3 same because he “was kind of whispering when he said it.”2

GBI investigators reviewed the audio and visual recording and arrested

English for murder. English then gave a formal statement to the police. After

waiving his Miranda rights, English told police that he argued with Payne in

Humphrey’s home, that the argument turned violent, and that he struck Payne

in the head with an object multiple times. After Payne fell on the sofa, English

left the home, cleaned himself up, and returned to make sure Payne was okay,

and noted that Payne had been bleeding from his head. English claimed that he

then went to O’Neal’s house. English did not admit to law enforcement officials

that he killed Payne or started the fire. Later, on May 11, 2009, officers

interviewed English in the jailhouse and received essentially the same

information.

This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find English guilty of

the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2 There are instances in which the recordings are obscured by background noise and the conversation is inaudible. There is no audible confession to the murder, itself, on the recording. 4 2. In his sole enumeration of error, English contends that the trial court

plainly erred by not instructing the jury regarding the necessity of corroborating

evidence for confessions under former OCGA § 24-3-53. This statute states:

All admissions shall be scanned with care, and confessions of guilt shall be received with great caution. A confession alone, uncorroborated by any other evidence, shall not justify a conviction.3

English’s trial counsel neither requested a charge based on this statute, nor

objected to the lack of that charge or any alternative charges. Nonetheless,

“under OCGA § 17-8-58 (b), appellate review for plain error is required

whenever an appealing party properly asserts an error in jury instructions,” as

English has done in this case. State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1) (718 SE2d 232)

(2011). There are four prongs in the test for plain error, each of which must be

satisfied:

First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of deviation from a legal rule — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant. Second, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected the appellant's substantial rights, which in

3 This provision is now codified at OCGA § 24-8-823. English’s trial occurred in 2010, and therefore predated the new Evidence Code and OCGA § 24-8-823, which were made effective on January 1, 2013. 5 the ordinary case means he must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Lowe v. State
476 S.E.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Robinson v. State
205 S.E.2d 210 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
State v. Kelly
718 S.E.2d 232 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2011)
Hamm v. State
756 S.E.2d 507 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2014)
Stanbury v. State
786 S.E.2d 672 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Rashid v. State
737 S.E.2d 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2013)
English v. State
796 S.E.2d 258 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
English v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-state-ga-2017.