Robbery conviction reversed due to improper testimony by police officer and ineffective assistance of counsel
The Court of Appeals of Georgia has held that a police officer may not testify as to statements made by a co-defendant which implicate the defendant when the statements are gathered during the course of the investigation, and the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendant. Furthermore, the failure of defense counsel to object to such testimony constitutes deficient counsel.
In Grindle v. State, the defendant, Grindle, was convicted by a jury of robbery, aggravated battery, and battery. The conviction stemmed from an incident in a Walmart parking lot in which a man snatched a woman’s purse. Upon snatching the purse, the purse became entangled in shopping bags and the woman fell to the ground breaking her arm and causing other injuries. The woman described the man as a white male who jumped inside a light colored vehicle with a driver and a passenger in the backseat. A bystander had heard of the robbery and saw what he believed to be the getaway car on the road later that night. The bystander saw a driver, a front seat passenger with a roundish tattoo on his upper arm, and a backseat passenger. All three were looking into a purse which was being held by the front seat passenger. The man was able to take down the license plate number.
Detectives traced the number to a car driven by a woman named Gonzalez who had been arrested in her car along with two other people, Grindle and another man named Plunkett, the following day for snatching a purse from a woman in a K-Mart parking lot. At the time of the arrest, Gonzalez was wearing a ring which had been taken from the Walmart victim’s purse, and inside her car, there was a pager and a day-timer which came from the same woman’s purse. In addition, Grindle had a roundish tattoo on his upper arm.
Grindle denied being present at the Walmart robbery and told police that it was Plunkett who stole the purse in the K-Mart lot. However, according to a detective at trial, Plunkett stated during an interrogation that Grindle had taken the purse in the Walmart lot. Plunkett did not testify at trial, and defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony.
On appeal, Grindle argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to the detective’s testimony. Under the Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, the Constitution forbids out-of-court statements which are testimonial (made during the course of an investigation) and when the defendant cannot cross the person who made the statements. Here, Plunkett’s statements were made to police during the investigation and Plunkett was not available to testify at trial. Thus, Grindle’s attorney should have objected, and the failure to object was deficient. Furthermore, since Plunkett was the only one who identified Grindle as the Walmart purse snatcher, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had defense counsel raised an objection. Thus, the court found that defense counsel was ineffective and that Grindle was entitled to a new trial.
Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Page Pate was recently the Chairman of the Criminal Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association.
