Granted
The two grants of cert petitions today ask "what, if anything, must a criminal defendant admit in order to raise an affirmative defense? Must the defendant make any such admissions for all purposes or only for more limited purposes?
McClure v. The State, Case No. S18C1599
On April 2, 2015, two people drove to Carlos Richard McClure's house to pick up a friend of theirs ("Friend") who could not drive. When they arrived, McClure and the Friend were arguing outside the residence, and when Friend got into the car she was visibly upset. McClure then went back into the residence, and allegedly emerged with an object that looked like a gun and pointed it at the car. When the police were called, McClure acknowledged having the weapon (a BB gun) during the incident, but denied ever having pointed it at the car. McClure was ultimately convicted of aggravated assault.
In relevant part, McClure argues the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of "justification" in defense of oneself and the home. In reviewing this claim, the court of appeals held that these defenses require a defendant to admit all the elements of the crime except intent. See 347 Ga. App. 68, 70 (2018) ("with a legal affirmative defense, the accused admits the elements of the crime, but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate by showing no criminal intent."). The court concluded that since McClure did not admit to aiming the BB gun at the victims, which is an element of aggravated assault (as charged in the case), the trial court was correct in refusing to give jury instructions on justification as an affirmative defense.
Pennington v. The State, Case NO. S18C1495
Charles Pennington was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance near a school. Pennington argued in the Court of Appeals that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense for transacting in controlled substances near a school, which essentially asserts that the relevant conduct took place entirely on private property, outside the presence of minors, and was not conducted for financial gain. See OCGA 16-13-32.4(g) The Court of Appeals held that because Pennington did not admit that he possessed controlled substances with intent to distribute, he was not entitled to charge the jury on the affirmative defense.
Both cases will be assigned to the May 2019 Oral argument Calendar under rule 50(2).
Denied
S18C1475. STEPHENS v. CASTANO-CASTANO (A18A0100)
S18C1502. ANGLIN et al. v. SMITH et al. (A16A1405)
S18C1504. I.A. GROUP, LTD. CO. et al. v. RMNANDCO, INC. (A18A0578)
S18C1507. GRAY TELEVISION, INC. v. STRATEGIC PREVENTION EDUCATION COMPLIANCE, INC. (A18A0380)
S18C1515. ALR OGLETHORPE, LLC et al. v. HENDERSON et al. (A18A0158)
S18C1516. SCOTT v. ANDERSON (A18A0558)
S18C1522. REED v. CITY OF SAINT MARYS (A18A0625)
S18C1543. TATE ET AL. v. MILLER (A18A0108)
S18C1551. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. MAYS et al. (A18A0706)
S18C1582. HOOD v. THE STATE (A18A1839)
S18C1588. ACREE v. ALLEN et al. (A18D0461)
S18C1596. HILL v. THE STATE (A18A0112)
S19C0013. IN THE INTEREST OF R.W. JR. et al., CHILDREN (A18A1671)
No comments:
Post a Comment